In Silverman v. Budnick, 828 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2002), Budnick wanted to become pregnant through the “conventional form” instead of using ART. So, she approached her friend Silverman to be the biological father. The parties entered a preconception agreement determining that if Budnick became pregnant by Silverman, she would be fully responsible for the custodian and the expenses. The contract stated that Silverman’s name would not list on the birth certificate, and, in this way she would not initiate a paternity action. Additionally, the agreement expressed that if Budnick did not stick to the terms, Silverman could “assume full and complete and permanent custody and guardianship of the child of this pregnancy.” 9 Ten years after the birth of the child, the mother filed a paternity action seeking child support from Silverman and sole parental responsibility for the child, claiming the agreement was against public policy.6 Silverman sought to avoid the child support obligation, claiming that he was a sperm donor under F.S. …show more content…
Silverman’s argument, was denied by the court and rejected by reasoning that the statute concerned6 ART instead of impregnation by the usual fashion way. Thus, FS § 742.148 does not apply to a conception that happened the old-fashioned way. Therefore, the preconception agreement did not protect Silverman from obligation for child support. However, the court decided that the 10 year delay had denied Silverman of his rights. The Fourth District, although, had an opposite opinion. They assumed that because Silverman included the provision in the agreement that he could assume custody of the child if Budnick sought child support.6 In this decision, the Fourth District ruled that Budnick obtains not only the full guard of the child but also financial compensation, while Silverman received no benefit of the