That is all just so crazy. My husband and I saw this on the news, and had a big discussion about it. We both agree that the man should not be responsible for child support. I feel that the man who was married to her should pay. Some may say "well it's not really his kids". But that doesn't matter. He was married to her, so it was HIS family. That would be like saying that the "parents" of an adopted child, after a divorce, that niether parent would have to pay child support. Of course they are liable for child support. They took on the resposibility of raising that child. That's how it is for the man that was married to her. He took on the child as his own.
Biology doesn't make a parent. I feel that legally you are the parent through adoption or by a baby being born within the marraige (regardless if it's actually the man's biological child). Some of the situations that happen (such as pregnancy from adultery), really stink, but that's just where I think the law should lay. Then of course there are those that sleep together and have a baby..... but that's different than this invitro thing.
I know the idea of a man having to pay child support for a child conceived from adultery can really upset some people. But I'm not a supporter of divorce for one. If their was no such thing as divorce, then the man and woman would both have to support this child for the rest of it's childhood. Because they are a family, even though the child came about through a really wrong act. But if you go soley off biological reasons for support, then imagine this scene: child born from adultery, the couple stays married, and child support taken from the biological father. That would be stupid.
And in this particular case that's in the courts now...... why couldn't she get child support from the biological father before? While married? Because she WAS married! So the support lies on the husband and wife, right? Having NOTHING to do with biology.