The Pennsylvania Superior Court, in a recent decision, ordered that a sperm donor who had a close relationship with the two children he fathered must pay child support.

It is an interesting decision for a number of reasons.

First of all, Pennsylvania has no laws that address reproductive issues such as this, which resulted in a first-ever court ruling that recognizes three adults as parents and having financial responsibilities for the same children.

In addition, the sperm donor was not anonymous but a friend of the biological mother, and he eventually sought partial custody of the children.

To further complicate matters, the donor died while the court case was pending.

The two children were born to Jodilynn Jacob, 33, who at the time was in a long-term relationship with another woman, Jennifer Lee Shultz-Jacob, 48. The women began living together in 1996 in York County.

Ms. Jacob was friends with Carl L. Frampton Jr., of Indiana, Pa., and he agreed to provide sperm for her to conceive.

After the children were born, Mr. Frampton was a big factor in their lives. He provided money for their care, bought them toys and clothing, and even secured a loan for the two women to buy a car.

The children called him "Papa."

But in February 2006, the two women separated.

Ms. Jacob, who now lives in Harrisburg, filed an action for child support against Ms. Shultz-Jacob in Dauphin County. After a judge there ordered the support, Ms. Shultz-Jacob appealed and filed a separate action claiming that the biological father should have to pay for the children, too, thereby reducing the amount she owed.

A Dauphin County judge disagreed and did not require the Indiana County man to pay support.

In the meantime, a York County judge gave Mr. Frampton partial custody of the children. He got them for one weekend each month.

In the April 30 Superior Court decision ordering Mr. Frampton to pay support, the three-judge panel found that he was "voluntarily, indeed, enthusiastically, an integral part of their lives."

Attorney John Fenstermacher, who represented the biological father in the support case, said the money was not an issue.

"He was supporting them," said Mr. Fenstermacher. "From Carl's perspective, it was never about money."

The most interesting part of the case, Mr. Fenstermacher said, is that in its ruling, the Superior Court determined that three people are financially responsible for those children.

"The case law in Pennsylvania [before] has indicated there have only been two parents," he said. "This is the first case to recognize three individuals."

The Dauphin County trial court that first heard the case found that having three people with financial responsibility was an untenable situation. But the Superior Court disagreed, saying: "We are not convinced that the calculus of support arrangements cannot be reformulated."

That may not matter now.

Mr. Frampton, 60, died from a stroke in March. His wish, according to Timothy Ayres, the lawyer handling his estate, was to leave everything he had to the children.

"It's not an exorbitant estate," he said, noting that it includes some savings and a mobile home. "It's what I'd consider a modest estate that will all go to those kids."

The money will be set up in a trust fund for them, Mr. Ayres said, which will likely be used for their education.

The children are now 7 and 8 years old.

Lawrence Kalikow, a Bucks County lawyer who specializes in reproductive law, said the court's decision in the Jacob case is unusual.

"But in a way, it is very consistent with the way the law is developing in this area," he said.

Mr. Frampton was both a legal and genetic father in this case and had a clear obligation to the children, Mr. Kalikow said.

Even if a man never had any relationship with the children at all, in Pennsylvania, a sperm donor who is not anonymous could still be required to pay support, he said.

That's because the law, as it stands now, is based on a 2004 Superior Court decision. In that case, the court found that a Mt. Lebanon man who donated sperm to a former girlfriend -- with a promise from her that he would bear no responsibility toward the twins she had -- was required to pay $1,500 a month toward their care.

The case was appealed and was argued before the state Supreme Court on May 17, 2005. It has been pending since then.

Cases like these -- and others involving surrogacy and similar issues -- could more easily be settled, all the lawyers said, if the state Legislature would write laws to address them.

Pennsylvania is one of only a handful of states that do not have laws to address the parental rights of sperm donors.

Harry Tindall, a family law attorney in Houston, who helped write the Uniform Parentage Act, was outraged by the Superior Court's decision in the Jacob case.

"Donors are not parents. Why should we hurt someone for trying to do good?" he asked.

But more than that, he was frustrated, like the others, at the lack of legislation.

"Pennsylvania won't pass laws on this issue, so courts don't have any guidance," he said. "Shame on a legislature that doesn't have the values to address this issue."

Mr. Kalikow, who chairs the subcommittee on assisted reproductive technologies under the Joint State Government Commission, hopes state lawmakers will soon do that.

He noted that the state does have laws related to reproductive issues in dog breeding.

Mr. Kalikow believes there are no state laws related to these questions with humans because the issues are too emotional.

"It implicates these very sensitive, social, religious and then, political, issues," he said.

Those include the idea of extraordinary conception -- like sperm donation and in vitro fertilization -- as well as encouraging single parenthood and the possibilities of same-sex couples adopting, Mr. Kalikow said.

"There is no way to isolate from religious and social conservatives concerns that this is promoting unconventional family building," he said. "You're going to get a lot of heat."

First Published: May 11, 2007, 3:30 a.m.