Is A Sperm Donor A Biomatter Donor Or A Father?
Via @WalterOlson, the state of Kansas wants a sperm donor found on Craigslist to pay for the daughter born to lesbian couple -- despite his agreement with the couple that he would have no rights or responsibilities. Tim Hrenchir writes at CJOnline:
Topekan William Marotta sought only to become a sperm donor -- but now the state of Kansas is trying to have him declared a father.Nearly four years ago, Marotta donated sperm in a plastic cup to a lesbian couple after responding to an ad they had placed on Craigslist.
Marotta and the women, Topekans Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, signed an agreement holding him harmless for support of the child, a daughter Schreiner bore after being artificially inseminated.
But the Kansas Department for Children and Families is now trying to have Marotta declared the 3-year-old girl's father and forced to pay child support. The case is scheduled for a Jan. 8 hearing in Shawnee County District Court.
...Marotta, Bauer and Schreiner each signed an agreement saying he would be paid $50 per semen donation, with the arrangement including a clear understanding that he would have no parental rights whatsoever with the child or children.
The agreement also called for Bauer and Schreiner to hold Marotta harmless "for any child support payments demanded of him by any other person or entity, public or private, including any district attorney's office or other state or county agency, regardless of the circumstances or said demand."
Schroller said that after consulting with his wife, Marotta decided to donate free of charge rather than taking the $50.
...On Oct. 3, attorney Mark McMillan filed a petition on behalf of the Department of Children and Families seeking a ruling that Marotta is the father of Schreiner's child and owes a duty to support her. It said the department provided cash assistance totaling $189 for the girl for July through September 2012 and had paid medical expenses totaling $5,884.96.
Schroller, an attorney with Topeka-based Swinnen & Associates, said the state became involved after the mother fell on hard times and applied for financial assistance through the state.
She said of Schreiner: "My understanding is that after being pressed on paternity of the child, she gave them William's name as a sperm donor. The state then filed this suit to determine paternity."
This is horrible, abusive, and awful and an offshoot of the paternity fraud used by states to collect at all cost for payments for children -- and never mind whether they're collecting from the men who actually fathered them.
If men don't respond within a certain period of time -- perhaps because they're away at war and not getting their mail, or for any other reason -- they are declared the father, and petty inconveniences, like how a kid's DNA doesn't match theirs are considered immaterial.
I don't understand why MRAs don't push more for a boycott of sperm donations in general.
After all, they're the people (sometimes) who point out over and over how fatherhood has been trivialised in the U.S., and how fathers have been made to seem no more important to children's well-being than siblings are.
When I was in my teens and first heard of sperm clinics and how the wives of infertile men use them, all I could think was: "What sort of self-respecting man would consent to THAT arrangement?"
And considering that we never seem to run out of kids over a certain age (or kids with social/physical handicaps) who need to be adopted, all the more reason to push couples toward that path instead.
lenona at December 31, 2012 6:57 AM
Yep - this is going to happen more and more. Not to mention that when the kid turns 18, he also gains the right to sue for back child support.
ParatrooperJJ at December 31, 2012 7:09 AM
Well, it just confirms that same sex couples who say they want to be like everyone else, are. They obviously want to screw and go back on their word like the rest of the society they constantly criticize for not being compassionate and not allowing them their rights - here you have it. Move along, nothing to see here. LOL
venicementor at December 31, 2012 7:22 AM
> This is horrible, abusive, and awful and an
No, wrongo, stop, don't do that, take it back and get real. This is not an administrative failure.> offshoot of the paternity fraud used by
> states to collect at all cost for
> payments for children
This is what happens when civilization's dearest and most fundamental tenets dissolve into claptrap like people "should be allowed to marry the one person of their choice."
Pretending that every constraint in life is a paperwork problem is precisely the source of nightmares like this.
Don't pretend that the man (or the idiot) on the street had nothing to do with this.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 31, 2012 7:23 AM
Setting aside how obviously wrong it is to change prices after the fact, I think a lot of people are missing an important angle on this story. If you're a sperm donor in Kansas, the average cost of donating sperm may have just swung from a +$50 profit to potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in child support. If you're someone who does or will rely on donated sperm for your reproductive choices, the pool of donors is about to collapse.
From a reproductive rights standpoint, this actually seems like a pretty big deal; practically a ban on sperm donation and related procedures.
Kevin at December 31, 2012 7:47 AM
> practically a ban on sperm donation and
> related procedures.
It's very difficult to sympathize with any parties here, including (to some extent) the children who've been so brightly and cruelly flagged as a poor investment by their own parents.
I feel worst for the better taxpayers who build strong families with the usual constraints; they shouldn't have to put up with this shit in their courts.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 31, 2012 8:00 AM
From Lenona: "I don't understand why MRAs don't push more for a boycott of sperm donations in general."
From Kevin: "From a reproductive rights standpoint, this actually seems like a pretty big deal; practically a ban on sperm donation and related procedures."
Yep on both of these. There are some MRAs pushing the sperm-donation issue. But as Kevin points out, it will probably happen even without advocacy. We see in hindsight what a huge mistake this guy made. Men who want to do this may think they are gaining protection by going through anonymous sperm banks. But there are tons of lawsuits being files to force the records of those banks to be opened, and eventually one of them will get lucky. Once that happens, that's the end of sperm banks.
Cousin Dave at December 31, 2012 8:03 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/01/01/is_a_sperm_dono.html#comment-3536688">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]This is what happens when civilization's dearest and most fundamental tenets dissolve into claptrap like people "should be allowed to marry the one person of their choice."
Wrong. The same thing could have happened if the couple had been a woman and an infertile man and they had sought a sperm donor.
Try not to use every post that relates to childbearing to advance your agenda that gay people should not be allowed to marry or have children.
Especially when your logic fails like it did here.
Amy Alkon at December 31, 2012 8:05 AM
It is funny how it says she was forced to give them his name. This needs to b investigated the couple continues to have more children on the states dime. And what happened to their foster children where are the fathers of the other children lots of questions but no answers.
Daddy of 8 at December 31, 2012 8:35 AM
We see in hindsight what a huge mistake this guy made.
All it takes is 1 guy to handle pretty much everybody.
What it realistically means is that anybody with any means just decided not to help out.
But there's far far far too much supply for demand, it's how nature works. One guy can handle *everybody*. It might not be the Adonis they want to get the sperm from, but, hey, kid.
(Special PS for Crid: My wife used to work with a lesbian whose son was fathered by her brother.)
Unix-Jedi at December 31, 2012 8:39 AM
> Try not to use every post that relates to
> childbearing to advance your agenda that
> gay people should not be allowed to marry
> or have children.
Hey Amy, TRY to be more (pathetically) breezy, oblivious, and trendy in your use of language. Agenda!
Jesus, that's straight out of an 1983 coffee klatch for cranky (virgin) 'feminists' at some New Hampshire girl's school. Our rhetorical opponents have an AGENDA...! Danger! We must be vigilant and closed-minded!
> that gay people should not be allowed
> to marry or have children.
SHOW ME two gays who made a child and we can move this discussion forward.
There's no rush, OK?, but your search will deliver statistical evidence immediately, and the trend will not wilt under research.
I'll be seated over here in the Reality Lounge, enjoying a book and a glass of cab. You'll know me by my snicker.
' One person!'
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 31, 2012 8:43 AM
> My wife used to work with a lesbian whose son
> was fathered by her brother.
Do I bother you with my problems?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 31, 2012 8:44 AM
This has me wondering if people who give their children up for adoption could be sued for child support.
Steamer at December 31, 2012 8:48 AM
I won't pretend to be completely impartial. I have very strong beliefs regarding children having mothers and fathers.
That disclosed, this is more a problem with an intrusive government. It is not unique to same sex couples. One of my close friends had an 'infertile, divorced girlfriend' who was none of the 3. The day she found out she was pregnant she broke up with him. Turns out her husband was infertile and they found it cheaper than a donor. Now they get paid to be parents.
I do think this will happen more often as more lesbian couples bear children simply because they must involve an outside (male) party. But it is a problem with an overreaching government.
The solution is to allow fathers to abort their paternity legally. That, after all, is a right we consider sacrosanct for women. But I don't see it happening.
Trust at December 31, 2012 9:04 AM
This has me wondering if people who give their children up for adoption could be sued for child support.
Only the males.
dee nile at December 31, 2012 9:04 AM
> I do think this will happen more often as more
> lesbian couples bear children
That can never, ever be a problem.
Y'know, sometimes people lose control of things because they forget the words for them.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 31, 2012 9:06 AM
I wonder if the sperm donor can sue for custody.
Ken R at December 31, 2012 9:12 AM
The solution is to allow fathers to abort their paternity legally. That, after all, is a right we consider sacrosanct for women. But I don't see it happening.
Posted by: Trust at December 31, 2012 9:04 AM
____________________________________
As if any smart politician is going to support (or allow) something that would cause the REAL abortion rate to skyrocket.....
I don't know why the supporters of C4M (Choice for Men) don't realize that. All the more reason for MRAs to demand better male birth control, even if they, as individuals, don't plan to use condoms and AND Vasalgel simultaneously. I.e., contrary to what some MRAs like to imply, most women have no objection to men who insist on using condoms, so long as he makes it clear he's only worried about contraceptive failure rates and not her integrity - and men who don't want to use condoms are going to find that most women will still want to use them.
lenona at December 31, 2012 9:54 AM
The article says the mother fell on hard times.
What about the other mother?
Sosij at December 31, 2012 10:03 AM
From Lenona: "I don't understand why MRAs don't push more for a boycott of sperm donations in general."
Because it would do little good. As a numbers game there is just too much that coud be done with the sperm that had already been donated, all the sperm banks would need is a handful of donors. It's not as if 1 donation = 1 sperm, and there is little question of viability/freshness. A guy who donated once 10 years ago can become a father 5 times tomorrow. No laws prevent 1 guy from being the father of dozens if not hundreds.
Unlike a marriage strike or workers strike or a store boycott, where if even 20% of the people participated in the boycot/strike the buisness would notice and have to react. a sperm bank would be fine with even a .0001% of local donation rate.
Joe J at December 31, 2012 10:26 AM
lenona,
It can't be proven, but I believe real abortion rates would drop if men could abort their rights. We give women a lot of options when it comes to pregnancy. As a consequence, there is less caution about not only getting pregnant, but by whom one risks pregnancy with.
Trust at December 31, 2012 10:55 AM
Well, it MAY be just a rumor, but from what I hear, the banks can't keep up with the demand right now.
lenona at December 31, 2012 10:56 AM
Seems I am one of two people who noticed that the woman is not the one who is going after the biological father, the State is - probably because of the ongoing price of medical treatment for the kid.
As to "What about the other mother?" she is gone with no forwarding address.
I do wonder if "child support" payments cover more than normal costs - are all medical bills included? College? First car? And if "mom" is not asking for child support, does the State really have the right/obligation to do so on her behalf - even without an application from her?
John A at December 31, 2012 11:07 AM
This should be required reading for every son getting the "sex talk".
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocse/handbook_on_cse1.pdf
Meloni at December 31, 2012 11:23 AM
Also, I have heard from multiple people that the states get federal money for every dollar they successfully collect in child support. I have not been able to confirm if this is true and I apparently haven't been looking in the right place yet. Does anybody know this one way or another? It would certainly explain, at least in part, why states are starting to push for support through college, among other things.
Meloni at December 31, 2012 11:27 AM
@John A: The state my sister lives in went after the father of my oldest nephew for support. She did not apply. I assume it will more likely happen if the mother is using state aid.
Meloni at December 31, 2012 11:29 AM
Exactly. Where is Bauer in all this? Didn't she agree to act as one half of the parenting duo here? Shouldn't she be the one being hit up for child support?
Can Marotta subsequently sue Bauer and Schreiner for breach of contract?
Conan the Grammarian at December 31, 2012 11:41 AM
> from what I hear, the banks can't keep up
> with the demand
The problem is thieves.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at December 31, 2012 12:08 PM
It can't be proven, but I believe real abortion rates would drop if men could abort their rights. We give women a lot of options when it comes to pregnancy. As a consequence, there is less caution about not only getting pregnant, but by whom one risks pregnancy with.
Posted by: Trust at December 31, 2012 10:55 AM
___________________________________
Trouble is, people just don't think that far ahead unless we're talking about an absolute force. In other words, EVERY man facing unexpected fatherhood would have to opt out before a noticeable number of women - never mind teens - changed their general habits. Not to mention that, as at least one well-known writer said: "The vast majority of husbands who don't want children are crazy about the baby once it arrives." So that phenomenon likely happens with unmarried fathers too - at least sometimes.
And as I hinted, politicians are not likely to risk even a short-term spike in abortions just for the sake of lowering the rate later - what if it didn't work?
lenona at December 31, 2012 12:27 PM
'doesn't matter if the bear wins, or the wolf, the rabbit always loses.'
The state doesn't care about the niceties in all this, all they care is that there is a person to pay... oddly, seems it's often a guy. Doesn't really matter what his relation to the kid is, as long as he can be made to pay.
Where's the other mother? They prolly had a falling out, as lovers often will, and she left.
I think from the state's perspective, she doesn't have any responsibility unless she actively adopts the kid.
What the guy didn't realize was that The State was the third party in the transaction. He and lawyers may have thought that the 2007 decision on donor rights to the kid [ie. they don't have rights or responsibilities] but you know, MONEY.
Which might be good for taxpayers, if this legal battle wasn't going to cost 100X what they are paying out for the kid.
The taxpayer is entirely blameless in this too... It's just that when a state avalanche starts, it crushes everyone, regardless of their virtue. The laws were written at a time when the only people party to a kid were a man and woman... not a contract...
In any case, I can't imagine why the lesbian community isn't up in arms over this whole thing, as others have mentioned, this will startlingly effect them, and their ability to have children biologically...
SwissArmyD at December 31, 2012 1:50 PM
Eight fucking kids. One mom decides (assuming by the picture o her with her new squeeze - a man) she's not a lEsbian anymore and now welfare gets involved. A complete clusterfuck. Although this could happen to a straight couple - I have to say there has been a serious lack of insight into same sex partnerships, family planning and thousands of years of- oh I don't know, biology that pretty much solidifies for me the fact that complicating marriage and child rearing really isnt in societies best interest and certainly not in childrens bet interest. I mean, this is just getting downright amoral. These are little kids. Assholes! The sperm donor. The lesbians. The welfare state- all of them. Assholes. Selfish pricks.
That aside. When we have a governments refusal to acknowledge or allow or recognize a private contract between sane (ahem), legal aged, willing adults ... We have problems.
On the other hand - when you are giving out freebies to the public these are the types exactly that will drain resources and not give a shit about anyone else. I know. Shocker.
When you go to a sperm bank you are required to wave your rights to claim any government assistance even if you fall upon hard times. So here is another problem.
Really. The parties involved here are complete scum bags. And that las picture of one of the "lesbians" with her new partner gently holding her womanly pooch (as if to indicate there is a baby on bored yet again) .... I mean... This woman is a fucking monster.
Feebie at December 31, 2012 2:41 PM
It's intriguing.
If the court were to hold that he has unavoidable responsibility for the child through the DNA connection wouldn't that eventually open the way to a ruling that he has inalienable rights regarding the child through the DNA connection?
Or is that rights/responsibilities duality just so.. 18th Century, anymore?
phunctor at December 31, 2012 3:07 PM
I agree that fatherhood has been trivialized -- but parenthood is also under attack. There are numerous laws that if you don't immunize your children, get them the right treatment, etc. that can put a parent in jeopardy of loss of rights.
The idea of straight or gay couples using a sperm bank is that they have a chance of having a genetically part in their child. Just as using a surrogate mother should not be an option for a gay male couple. As a matter of fact, I'm sure there has been a gay male couple that has split up and left the "father" on welfare. Have they ever gone after the birth-mother?
Lenona,
I'm not going after you to goad you, but I am asking you to look at realities. There have been more than one gay couple that been willing to adopt over the years. There is also a bias by most social service agencies, let alone state laws, that they will only allow adoption to nominally heterosexual couples.
Jim P. at December 31, 2012 3:16 PM
This guy shoulda consulted a lawyer.
And if he did he should sue for malpractice, even I know that noone can sign away state involvment.
When this guy loses his only recorse will be to sue the two women for breach of contract, andf what jury is going to award the asshole man sueing women needing money for his child the womens money?
Quite frankly I think fertility treatments should be illegal. Nature doensnt want you having kids - otherwise you'd have kids. Fucking ADOPT.
Ofcourse if shit heels like crid werent so hell bent on preventing gay couples from adopting they wouldnt be making 'legal bomb' babies.
But a mother andf a father are best, right crid?
And if they cant get the best a fucking warehouse, and being dumped on the street the morning of their 18th birthday is better than fags, right crid?
lujlp at December 31, 2012 3:34 PM
The idea of straight or gay couples using a sperm bank is that they have a chance of having a genetically part in their child.
______________________________
My point was, why would anyone, gay or straight, choose to be in a situation (aside from when the kid was already born when one adult partner first met the other adult) where the future baby will have a distinctly stronger connection to the other parent?
_____________________________
There have been more than one gay couple that been willing to adopt over the years. There is also a bias by most social service agencies, let alone state laws, that they will only allow adoption to nominally heterosexual couples.
Posted by: Jim P. at December 31, 2012 3:16 PM
_____________________________
And of course that bias is wrong, if only because such needy kids need at least one - preferably two - stable, loving adoptive parents (and there are plenty of horror stories regarding heterosexual adoptive couples who turned out to be anything but stable; think of Joel Steinberg).
Yes, I'm opposed to surrogate motherhood as well. My point was that I can't approve of sperm banks, period. While I don't think people who don't WANT children should feel guilty about not adopting needy kids, couples who do want kids and can't have them without outside help should lay aside their narcissism whenever possible. (I would even call it narcissistic - somewhat - for a fertile couple to use certain methods so that their second biological child will not be the same sex as the first. In fact, I believe that's illegal in at least some states.)
lenona at December 31, 2012 5:09 PM
Family law has not caught up with same sex issues. And there is the monkey wrench in that there must be a member of the opposite sex involved to get a baby. Every time. How very messy.
Most states, if not all, will go after the dad for money if the mom seeks assistance. No dad, no $$ from the state.
LauraGr at December 31, 2012 8:02 PM
When Bauer and Schreiner placed the ad, they had been together for eight years and already had adopted other children. The couple broke up in 2010 but co-parent their eight children, who range in age from 3 months to 25 years.
Grifters.
Kate at December 31, 2012 9:57 PM
Lookilpidddletits' comprehension is crippled by blinding rage, so perhaps minor typos are that much more regrettable.
But I'll forgive myself… Because I am richly sensitive and deeply insightful, casting light and warmth into many, many lives.
Happy New Year, Seekers!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 31, 2012 11:38 PM
This is how family law needs to catch up to the current trend: Let gays get married, and change presumptive paternity to "presumptive second parent". Then, whoever is married to the biomom at birth is the second legal parent until proven otherwise. Nevermind biology; that's how it works in cases where a married straight woman uses donor sperm---the husband has the rights and responsibilities because he is presumed by the law to want them. Presumed fathers/second parents still have some recourse---there can even be an exception for cases where the marriage is annulled or formal motion of divorce made in the, what 3-6 months on either side of the birth---just so that the default is NOT biology but behavior. Then, when the parents split, and whoever keeps the baby goes to get welfare, welfare goes after the legal "second parent" not the biofather.
Besides, that, make it clear that any "donation" done between single people instead of between a donor and a married couple (preferably facilitated by a clinic) is just the same as any other good old-fashioned, happy-fun-time babymaking in the eyes of the law---that is, if one parent wants to keep the baby, the other is going to have to pay child support and deal with it (men can keep the baby, too) or get the baby-keeping parent to legally agree to let him/her off the hook (and preferably, have the baby adopted by a new spouse) or they can agree to have the baby adopted by some other couple entirely.
Really, I don't approve sperm donation in general---any babymaking done without sex (like IVF or donor sperm) is not cool in my religion and I think it's quite sensible. But people are allowed to be insensible; the law should just protect their kids, and everyone else, from as much of that insensibility (including poverty and trauma) as it reasonably can.
Jenny Had A Chance at January 1, 2013 9:59 AM
Sorry crid, you dont get to forgive yourself of being a bigot or of sacrificing children on the alter of your fucked up ideology
lujlp at January 1, 2013 11:42 AM
My every glance is a blessing; each whisper, a delight.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at January 1, 2013 12:19 PM
I never need a blessing from you.
You are not a god.
Jim P. at January 1, 2013 2:43 PM
"Nevermind biology"
Ladies and gentleman... I give you Jenny. She likes to finger paint with dog shit on windows. It's gross, but she thinks it works.
Feebie at January 1, 2013 3:29 PM
There I go again!
Good God, I am so fabulous....
Y'know, it's not just my thundering physical allure that brings such enchantment, though that would be intimidating enough. No, the sense of comfort and well-being I convey to strangers is as much about intellectual candlepower and emotional attunement... And those are blessings which others can acquire by observation.
So the the power of my example is a responsibility, and it's one I take seriously.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at January 1, 2013 3:59 PM
I have recently received some intel that an acquaintance of mine, a female, is being made by the state to pay child support on a baby that she gave up for adoption, even though her parental rights have been terminated and she has no contact with the child. So if this is true, then then thing that Steamer conjectured about up-thread has, apparently, come to pass. This would certainly be a huge change from the traditional concept of adoption.
I think I know this lady well enough to approach her about it, but it's obviously a matter that requires a certain amount of sensitivity. And I don't know for sure that the info is in fact true. If I can find anything out, I'll report back.
Cousin Dave at January 1, 2013 6:48 PM
Seriously, I say great stuff sometimes.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at January 1, 2013 7:07 PM
Lordy-Pordy Doo-wop! This one is precisely on point!—
So Amy has been wrong about this before. I'm good at this. Great at this.Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at January 1, 2013 7:47 PM
Yoh know what, feebie you're right...biology is the only thing that matters as far as being a parent. Pardon me while I go hand my sister back to her batshit insane father.
Don't get me wrong---biology matters some and men who were duped by their wives into raising childfen who aren't theirs should be able to contest paternity and have their obligations as presumed father lifted...but that's not the case here. The person who should be on the hook here is not biologically related and was never led to believe she was. So, yeah, in this case "nevermind biology" really does apply. I never said we should always dismiss biology.
Honestly though I have very little sympathy for this guy. Apparently KS has a good system for protecting sperm donors and kids who result from donor sperm---if you have your insemination done in a proper clinic which screens recipients and donors, you can't be pursued for cs. These people chose to go outside that system.
jenny had a chance at January 1, 2013 8:03 PM
I think these people are monsters. I really do. ALL of them.
THAT is the first problem.
The second problem... I think where arrangements are NOT in the best interests of children - things should be unfair. Things should be painful. It should hurt...badly.
Biology does matter.
And the two lesbians should get ZERO entitlements because of that.
Feebie at January 1, 2013 8:11 PM
Oh, and as far as the government recognizing contracts---there has to be at limit to that when it involves kids. This involves a kid. In cases of child support, adoption, surrogacy, and, yes, sperm donation, the government has an obligation to protect the rights of the child(ren) involved. Parents can't just sign away their children's rights willy-nilly, and that's what this is about---the kid has a right to be provided for. Since biomom can't (or won't) do it, the state is doing it. Since the state shouldn't have to do it, they're going by their usual single-mother protocol and letting that all-important biology decide who should pay.
I'd like to say that this all could've been avoided, the kid's right to not be brought into a home that couldn't support her protected, if the state had checked out the couple like potential adoptive parents are checked out, which is apparently what happens with by-the-book sperm donations in KS...but it looks like KS let this couple adopt 8 (!) kids with their blessing already, so who knows? If nothing else, this guy would be able to tell the state "hey you approved this, and you're supposed to know what you're doing".
Jenny Had A Chance at January 1, 2013 8:20 PM
Hundreds of years of contract law already cover the ethics of the selling of humans. The state has nothing to do with it - the contract would simply be invalid.
What you are seeing is the states involvement and negation of a private contract not for any ethical purposes, but solely for the purposes of collection of revenues. This would be no different if this woman got knocked up at a bar one night... The only game changer is that she went in for the government handouts.
Protection of children my ASS! If the state really wanted to "help" children they would be doing things much differently - of course, there is little money in that.
Feebie at January 1, 2013 8:32 PM
Just to clarify here, contracts are invalid/unenforceable when the conflict with state laws or public policies. Which it would appear to.
That said, i still believe the state going after the father had little to do with the protection of children and more to do with recovery of revenue.
Had this woman not asked for government financial assistance, the state would likely not have been involved.
Feebie at January 1, 2013 8:44 PM
Feebie---you are saying both that biology does matter (and that anyone who can see exceptions to that rule plays with shit, charming) AND that the state is wrong for negating an extra-legal contract and pursuing the biological father?
I do think that KS is within its rights here. There IS an ethical reason to negate this contract: the lesbians and the donor are all scum, but their tax-paying neighbors are not and shouldn't be stuck with the bill for the baby. Plus, the state has a system for approving sperm donors and recipients and protecting their kids---if they don't penalize people for going outside of it, the system may as well not exist. Basically, the state should let people contract away their own money, their own stuff, their own services, on craigslist without interference---but when a kid is at stake, his/her interests should always be represented by the state and/or a lawyer. Should the state also let you adopt a kid off craigslist?
This is why marriage---for gay people and straight people---is so very important for parents. When the marriage contract breaks, the state sees to it that the kids' interests are dealt with properly. If these two scummy idiot lesbians had to go get a child support agreement approved by the court like all the divorcing straight couples I know, this would be much simpler.
Jenny Had A Chance at January 1, 2013 8:53 PM
Oh, I agree that they are pursuing this particular dad for revenue---I think they absolutely should though, since he did choose not to avail himself of the protections available for sperm donors---and not to protect this particular child.
I do think, though, that the system they set up---where donors and recipients submit to some background checks and jump though a few small hoops---was set up to protect children and donors both. Just to be clear.
Jenny Had A Chance at January 1, 2013 8:56 PM
This a make-a-lawyer rich case.
Your argument fails on the question of if he had fathered the child of an opposite sex couple via Craig List, would the prosecutors still come after him or the married father of the mother? Or even a single mother?
That they want to take his money because the former father (ex-girlfriend) of the couple took off.
The civil law presumption is that when you are married to a woman and she gives birth, you are the de-facto father.
Depending on state, you can object with a paternity test. (I.e. you, your kid and the "spouse" within X days.)
In this case he was never going to be the "father" by any meaning. But now the state is trying to abrogate his rights because the couple was homosexual. He is not at fault. The homosexual couple is at fault.
Jim P. at January 2, 2013 9:53 PM
I find it hard to sympathize with guys who squirt goo and then complain when people do bad things with it. We had a deal! is never a sufficient response to family failures; Family court is as pathetic as it is incompetent.
Policy is not the problem on our planet... Certainly not in that realm.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 2, 2013 10:39 PM
Jim P., I think they'd definitely come after a man who fathered a child with a single heterosexual woman. That's the policy---if you sign up for welfare, they have to try and find the kid's other parent and make him/her take care of the kid instead of the state. If a married hetero couple used a sperm donor and then the kid ended up on welfare, the kid would have a legal father and that's who they'd go after (unless the legal father tried to have that lifted, which, if he knew about the sperm donor, no decent judge would allow).
If KS recognized gay marriage, and these two were married, then, no, KS wouldn't have been able to come after the donor. They would've pursued the other lesbian. But the current state of affairs, not recognizing gay marriage or allowing gay people to both be the legal parents of the same child, lets *her* completely off the hook. She should be the kid's legal parent, but the sperm donor knew she couldn't be when he went ahead and made a baby.
The gay couple is at fault, sure---but their not the only ones. The man should've gone through the proper legal process if he wanted to be a sperm donor. Instead he participated in placing a baby into a home that had two financially insolvent parents and 8 other kids. That's just negligent, any way you slice it.
Jenny Had A Chance at January 3, 2013 7:41 AM
Hi Jenny - you mention "the system they set up---where donors and recipients submit to some background checks and jump though a few small hoops---was set up to protect children and donors both."
Can you point me in the direction of that info?
I spent about 12 hours researching and writing about this but didn't come across info on Kansas' vetting process, just the statute section that protects IVF-clinic sperm donors from paternity responsibilities.
I hate that I missed something and would be grateful for the assist.
Michelle at January 3, 2013 1:44 PM
I find it hard to sympathize with guys who squirt goo and then complain when people do bad things with it. We had a deal! is never a sufficient response to family failures; Family court is as pathetic as it is incompetent.
Policy is not the problem on our planet... Certainly not in that realm.
Posted by: Crid
Suppose the guy squirting goo was doing it in a fertility clinic in hopes of getting his own wife pregnant and some clerk misfiled it and five single mothers got it and the state wanted him to pay child support for five kids, would he have a complaint then?
lujlp at January 3, 2013 3:11 PM
"It can't be proven, but I believe real abortion rates would drop if men could abort their rights. ..."
Posted by: Trust at December 31, 2012 10:55 AM
I suspect the homicide rate would drop.
Jenny - you mention "the system they set up---where donors and recipients submit to some background checks and jump though a few small hoops---was set up to protect children and donors both."
Can you point me in the direction of that info?
I spent about 12 hours researching and writing about this but didn't come across info on Kansas' vetting process, just the statute section that protects IVF-clinic sperm donors from paternity responsibilities.
I hate that I missed something and would be grateful for the assist.
Michelle at January 3, 2013 5:48 PM
"Our rhetorical opponents have an AGENDA"
Actually what you have is an "agenda", that's exactly what it is. Words have meanings.
Lobster at January 4, 2013 4:17 AM
Leave a comment