> William Marotta didn't intend to be a father
> when he responded to a Craigslist ad for a
> sperm donor

No?

Please pardon me for quoting myself (I linked to the full blog post at my name):

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, in a portion known as “the takings clause” declares, “No person shall be... deprived of …liberty, or property, without due process of law…” The Fourteenth Amendment provides what is known as the Due Process Clause, which Wikipedia succinctly explains: “where an individual is facing a deprivation of life, liberty, or property, procedural due process mandates that he or she is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge.”

Children have a liberty right to a relationship with biological family, and a property right in the financial support that children often receive from family members.

The American Academy of Adoption Attorneys notes:

It has long been recognized that children are persons with rights protected by the United States Constitution. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 13 (1967) (stating that "neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults alone").

The realm of personal family life is a fundamental interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See, e.g., Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982) (there is an "historical recognition that freedom of personal choice in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment"); Smith v. City of Fontana, 818 F.2d 1411 (9th Cir. 1987) (stating that a child's interest in continued companionship and society of parents is a cognizable liberty interest); Spielman v. Hildebrand, 873 F.2d 1377 (10th Cir. 1989) (adoptive parents, like biological parents, have a fundamental liberty interest in the familial relation).

This fundamental right belonging to both parents and children also has been explicitly recognized by states other than California. See, e.g., Reist v. Bay Circuit Judge, 241 N.W.2d 55, 62 (Mich. 1976) (holding that the rights of parent and child in their "fundamental human relationship" are encompassed within the term "liberty"); Espinoza v. O'Dell, 633 P.2d 455 (Colo. 1981) (recognizing liberty interest in mutual relationship between child and parent). (Some citations omitted.)

It has been an established norm that the government will not randomly or impersonally deny a child’s right to receive support from her biological family."

If women need money from the state to bring up their kid(or whatever purpose they got the money from the state for), they should not be allowed to have kids in the first place. Of course, it is the fault of the state for allowing this state of affairs in the first place and not that of Marotta. If it was a normal irresponsible family, the govt. would probably be giving welfare and food stamps and everything else to the family, but now that they find there is a guy who can be extorted, they are not letting go of the opportunity.

Thank you, Michelle, for citing case law for this instance. Your presentation was much clearer than Patrick's in earlier discussion about the rights of minors. I note that these cases still do not convey the full cornucopia of rights as adults enjoy.

This is not "extortion". This is simply the state stepping in as the guardian of the incompetent minor, where adult parties did not recognize their responsibility under the law. Clearly, the "father" in this case legally did nothing different from showing up in person for a "one-night stand". Should this man's intent set-aside or mitigate the consequences of the law? Sure. You would never expect a man hurrying to the hospital with an injured child to be cited for running a stop sign, but practically speaking, courts provide solutions, not "justice".

While I disagree with the interpretation in the case law it is what it is. No need to go all lawyer on me, as one friend did. I'm not suggesting you are in error I just disagree that the state has the jurisdiction to mandate the transfer of property between individuals under the fifth amendment. Constitutional scholars vary on this.

I do understands the states action under the guise of had William Marotta not participated in this endever the people of Kansas would not be supporting this individual.

Go through the proper process or get shafted. The left support this with a smile and a tub of Crisco for gun owners but get all butt hurt when on the receiving end.

Radwaste, thank you.

As comparisons go - I copied and pasted from something that I had already written, that took me three hours to write, and was a distillation of concepts I had spent at least 100 hours researching and writing on previously, after having worked in a related area of law as an intern. My sense is that Patrick's comments might be more impromptu and pulled from a more general exposure.

Speaking of specialists and generalists, back in October I disappeared from a conversation we were in, about fracking. I still feel shitty about bailing on that convo - I apologize.

You had mentioned that there was a resource available to explain in fairly clear terms how radiation... fades? Works? I have no technical distinctions here. Will you ease share the link to or name of the resource?

The guy did this without consulting a lawyer? i's dotted, t's crossed and all that. Would have been a cheap investment.

*double face palm*

Maybe he ought to ask for primary custody, and repayment schedule and get the state out of his business as quickly as possible?

Shorter Michelle: a mother can not waive the father's responsibilities (or rights, for that matter) to the child because it is a matter between the father and the child.

Only a judge (or death) can do that. And generally a judge will go for that only if there is another party willing to voluntarily take on those responsibilities.

It would be interesting to see what, if any, would be the correct type of legal document the man would need to correctly absolve himself of all responsibility. Yeah this is a step removed from the same guy going to the sperm bank and then same women obtaining said sperm and inseminating through a doctor, etc. etc. I know there's a whole series of procedures and such, but if we as a society allow welfare recipients with oodles of kids to continue having more knowing they can't afford them, then why not this 'simple' solution this trio came up with... urk

Come again...

"It would be interesting to see what, if any, would be the correct type of legal document the man would need to correctly absolve himself of all responsibility. "

No legal documemt would have absolved him of parental responsibility under Kansas law.

What would have done that, was having the proceedure done in a doctor's office.

So, does all this mean he will also get visitation and a say in how the child is reared. I mean, if the courts are going to claim he is responsible financially for the kid, as the legal father, than it can be argued that he is also entitled to the rights and privelages as of a father. This could end up in a huge custody dispute between the women and the man in court.

than it can be argued that he is also entitled to the rights and privelages as of a father.

He's getting them. The only right and privilege any father has is to pay and pay and pay.

"This could end up in a huge custody dispute between the women and the man in court."

Posted by: Sabrina at January 23, 2014 7:52 AM

Yup.

And these laws vary by state. In many states, the laws are changing rapidly but not uniformly. Satisfying one state's requirements doesn't necessarily save you from a legal battle if the custodial parent moves to and tries to collect welfare from a state that has different standards.

So some idiot knocked up a woman he met on Craigslist and now has to pay child support. That's what I'd expect from the situaton.

Yeah, what the guy did was dumb. But under the current legal regime I would never, ever consent to be a sperm donor under any circumstances. Several states, e.g., Massachusetts, are trying like heck to force sperm banks to open their records so that receipients can sue the donors for support. It's just a matter of time -- all it takes is one judge, one time, and the gates will be wide open.

This guy answered an ad, and then the ladies and he proceeded to use a turkey baster (presumably) to do the deed. I'm all for beating my breast because he now has to pay child support - after all that wasn't the plan. But they had no legal agreement, nothing in writing. The fact that they didn't use a doctor is less of a problem than the lack of a legal agreement. These women aren't going after him - the state is, because that's what they do to fathers when the mother needs state assistance. If he had an agreement to show them, he wouldn't be in this situation.

> If he had an agreement to show them, he wouldn't
> be in this situation.

Except he did have an agreement:

"The state said Marotta's contract with the two women in which he waived his parental rights and responsibilities is invalidated by a 1994 state law."

Why would anyone want to pass on thr DNA of someone stupid enough to advertise on CL for this? or respond to such an ad? Genetics, kids--not for amateurs.

My problem with this is that the majority you posters are acting as if the government is a god and should have a right to say what individuals can agree to.

The three of them essentially sat down and said he's a sperm donor. They did it the deed. He walked away (maybe with cash). Now Kansas is saying he and the mothers weren't competent to decide that.

What if he had a session with a prostitute. Should he still be on the hook? Should the state have a right to limit prostitution? What if he had been a gigolo?

And why does the intervention of a doctor via a sperm donor lab change any of this? Because they paid the doctor and the donor?

The reason that this case was even brought was because the other mother in the case apparently walked out. How was that his fault? Why isn't she responsible?

So go ahead and be all righteous that he should be condemned to pay for his supposed "sin". But learn that you need to tell the state to go fuck off.

"My problem with this is that the majority you posters are acting as if the government is a god and should have a right to say what individuals can agree to"

The child wasn't a party to the agreement, and state law controls.

"The three of them essentially sat down and said he's a sperm donor. They did it the deed. He walked away (maybe with cash). Now Kansas is saying he and the mothers weren't competent to decide that."

No, they are saying that you cant contract away a child's right to support in this fashion. If you want to be a sperm donor, you need to do it through a clinic, or a doctor.

You didn't get around to reading any legal texts on the law of contracts, did you?

If you want to be a sperm donor, you need to do it through a clinic, or a doctor. -- Isab at January 23, 2014 7:04 PM

Why do you need a clinic or a doctor?

Do they have more common sense?

Does 10 pages of text make more sense than three people saying

• You are giving us your sperm.
• The person receiving the sperm does not expect anything more from you.
• You have no rights to the product of the sperm

And even if you want to say they have no right to remove the rights from the child, again why would need a clinic or a doctor to do the same thing?

So a person going to <overseas impoverished country> and bribing officials aren't questioned in the adoption?

Again you are saying the government has a right to tell you what you can do.

If they had all agreed to this, and no one else, then I'd say it is no one else's business.

Except the mothers afterwards decided that the taxpayers needed to get involved to help support the child. So, we taxpayers, via the state government, did get involved and told the biological father to pay up. Don't want the government involved? Then don't ask for the government to "help."

Sorry. I have no sympathy for any of the parties involved, except the child. They all did something and then some of them expected others (i.e., the taxpayers) to pay for it.

It sounds like dumbness all around.

Our ways of assigning and removing rights/responsibilities of parenthood are rather messed up.
The woman who signed contracts saying she would parent the child can leave scott free.
The father who signed those papers which said he can walk free can't. Ok so papers are meaningless.

Except, Parents can give up rights through adoption, which is signing legal papers, the child wasn't a party to that either, but it's allowed.

But if a Dr had been in the room, the man would have been able to. That distinction makes no sense to me. A barely involved 3rd party non-legal person. Shouldn't matter.

Now if they had said something like the papers needed to be notified or were badly written, that would be one thing, but it's not that.

You can also get rid of rights/responsibility by just dropping the kid off at a "safe haven" firehouse. No paperwork, no Dr. the child wasn't party to that either. But that's allowed.

So personally I wonder, could he safe haven drop off the kid and remove it that way. Even if Mom picks up the kid later. If not why not?

We also have the bizarre one of, if an underage boy is raped he can be forced to be the father.

The father who signed those papers which said he can walk free can't. Ok so papers are meaningless. -- Joe j at January 23, 2014 8:44 PM

Thank you for getting my points.

"[A] mother can not waive the father's responsibilities (or rights, for that matter) to the child because it is a matter between the father and the child.

Only a judge (or death) can do that. And generally a judge will go for that only if there is another party willing to voluntarily take on those responsibilities."

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at January 23, 2014 6:42 AM

That's it.

A kid dropped off at a firehouse will be adopted, following procedures designed to protect the child's rights - which usually includes publication in a newspaper of the government's intent to involuntary terminate parental rights, an investigation into the fitness of the people who want to adopt, and their sworn testimony regarding the financial and other obligations they are about to take on. This is designed to provide due process protections for the child's rights and to look out for the best interests of a vulnerable human being who is not in the embrace of a private support network.

Jim, do you really want biological parents to be free to give, sell, or trade defenseless human beings? With government support? With tax payer funds?

And if you go abroad and violate international treaties and federal law to obtain a child, you might find yourself unable to obtain US government assistance in obtaining a visa to bring this child out of one country or in to another.

You might not need government assistance, but if you seek government assistance, you invite government scrutiny.

Any man who donates sperm, by any method, formal or informal, has failed to read the prevailing ethos of our times.

With more and more out-of-wedlock births -- many by choice, because marriage rates are falling -- governments will be looking to reach into the pockets of donors. The state will do this by any contrivance necessary.

Single women, especially mothers, are a protected political class, and their numbers are growing. A man trifles with that at his peril. His "contract" has the life expectancy of a prenup in a coastal courtroom.

Jim, do you really want biological parents to be free to give, sell, or trade defenseless human beings? With government support? With tax payer funds? -- Michelle at January 23, 2014 9:07 PM

Why I am I obligated to support your bad choices?

This woman had fifteen children. Do I need to pay for them for some reason.

In a free society you should be responsible for your choices. The guy in this made a choice to donate sperm with no further involvement. Now the state is hanging him.

If he went to a brothel in Nevada, and impregnated a prostitute would you hold him responsible?

If he went to a brothel in Nevada, and impregnated a prostitute would you hold him responsible?

Posted by: Jim P. at January 23, 2014 9:58 PM

No, but I am not the state of Nevada. Your input into what state law requires or allows is totally dependent on your vote, and your involvement with your representatives in the legislature, who pass the laws.

The man who doesn't guard his own sperm in this day and age of genetic testing is a fool.

As this one winds down, let me again but directly affirm that any man who squirts goo in such a context does, unquestionably, intend to be a father, and that people who think quibbling can make such fundamental truths go away are The Problem.

Seekers, Friends, Americans: Don't BE The Problem.

Joe j, parents can't "just" sign away rights and responsibilities in adoption. There's a process, including obtaining an attorney for the child, having a homestudy of the adopting parents, and getting the approval of the judge. A birthmom can't just leave her baby with someone off craigslist and then cry "but I never intended to parent!" when that random stranger is unable to provide for the baby.

So, there's a process for adoption, and a process for sperm donation. If Marotta had gone through the process, he could've been legally in the clear.

Also the headline made me cringe. No, intentionally creating a child without verifying the financial and emotional stability of the household that will raise him/her is NOT a good deed!

"The man who doesn't guard his own sperm in this day and age of genetic testing is a fool. "

That's true, but I don't think you realize the extent of it. There are only two secure ways for a man to avoid becoming a father in this day and age: celibacy or vasectomy. The problem with that latter one is that, if a man has had sex with a woman, there are several ways by which legal fatherhood can be imputed to him even though it's medically impossible.

So, for men, that leaves celibacy. Meanwhile, women have so many options that in this day and age, no Western woman ever need bear a child if she doesn't want to. Does no one else see the problem here?

So, for men, that leaves celibacy. Meanwhile, women have so many options that in this day and age, no Western woman ever need bear a child if she doesn't want to. Does no one else see the problem here?
Posted by: Cousin Dave at January 24, 2014 7:10 AM

I see a problem but it is mostly with government social programs, and state law.

I don't think there is any imputed paternity outside of marriage, although California has been fast and loose in the past with requirements for notice to fathers named on birth certificates.

Unless the husband/ boyfriend/ father signs a waiver, a DNA test should always be done.

Even then, a few errors will happen, but no where near the free for all that existed in the 90's when DNA testing was expensive, and difficult.

Except Jenny you are forgetting Safe haven abandoning, just dropping off the kid IS the entirety of the process. No paperwork, no judges, no guarantee jr will be adopted ever.
Likewise if he went through a medical center, no judge is used, but he is absolved.

Why should that be legal/encouraged, but one filling out a contract and all parties agreeing be not.

Why would having a fireman or a Dr be present make the difference.

A judge vs a non judge I could see, but with standard sperm donation there is no judge, and neither is there with safe haven.

The real difference is, the allowed way benefits women the unallowed way would benefit men.

The child wasn't a party to the agreement

Neither are children who are given up for adoption without the knowledge or consent of their fathers. States seem not to care about that.

So, there's a process for adoption, and a process for sperm donation. If Marotta had gone through the process, he could've been legally in the clear. -- Jenny Had A Chance at January 24, 2014 5:04 AM

Can I make an agreement to take my dog over to a dog breeders house so my dog can fuck his bitch without a lawyer or a vet being involved?

Then why can't I give my sperm to woman without a doctor involved?

You have individual rights, that should not be usurped by the state.

Er, no, Joe. Children who are adopted via safe haven laws still have an attorney appointed, their adoptive parents are thoroughly screened and a judge must approve of their adoption.

If biology and medical technology allowed women to donate eggs without involving a doctor, then of course the law would have to hold women who donated eggs recklessly to strangers responsible, too. But safe haven laws let men and women both off the hook, equally. A man whose child is abandoned via safe haven can simply choose not to come forward when the notice is posted if he does not want to exercise his rights.

Why can't I give my sperm to a woman without a doctor involved?

----

You can! Just be responsible for seeing that taxpayers don't end up supporting children who result from that donation. Likewise, have all the sex with all the people you want---just support any children who result from that.

Your dog breeding analogy is ridiculous. Children have rights that puppies do not. You can sell your dog to the highest bidder if you want.

Jenny
Except we aren't talking about maybe years down the line if they get adopted. But the birth parent legally giving up responsibility. No lawyer or judge involved. And wala, taxpayers then must pay for it.
Safe haven is far from equally. If it was than this guy could right now drop the kid off, and walk away, no questions asked.

Joe j, no, "equal safe haven" would not mean that this guy could drop the kid off today---safe haven only applies to newborns, and it doesn't apply when one bioparent objects.

No one can legally relinquish his or her parental rights/obligations to another individual or couple without first going through the process, having the child represented by his/her own attorney, and having a judge approve it. Period. That's what Marotta tried to do---he tried to transfer his obligation to the biomom's partner. That's NOT what safe haven laws do. Safe haven laws allow a parent to relinquish his/her rights and obligations to the state, which will then find a suitable home, and eeven then it's not immediate---notices are posted after each safe haven drop off so that a parent may come forward and claim to be the bioparent.

You can! Just be responsible for seeing that taxpayers don't end up supporting children who result from that donation. Likewise, have all the sex with all the people you want---just support any children who result from that. -- Jenny Had A Chance at January 24, 2014 12:55 PM

You keep saying that if a doctor blesses the procedure the father is off the hook. But if a doctor doesn't bless it the father is responsible for the the future of mother financially.

Seriously, I'd like to know why that makes a damned bit of difference in a sperm donation? I bet you can find a doctor that will charge $100 cash to bless the piece of paper.

So basically two adults made a decision, signed a document without the government or outside agencies involved so it makes the contract invalid? Why? Does the state of Kansas have a power of attorney and guardianship status on all its' residents?

"Seriously, I'd like to know why that makes a damned bit of difference in a sperm donation?"

Nothing. It's new law, it's inconsistent with decades of policy and law in each state, it's not uniform across the states, and it has not been tested in the U.S. Supreme Court.

"So basically two adults made a decision, signed a document without the government or outside agencies involved so it makes the contract invalid? "

A lot of contracts are invalid under state and federal law, this is just one example.

Again, This is about the child's right to support from the father, and not about the contract between two adults.

For the unteenth time, you cant contract away a minors rights, unless you do it in accordance with state law.

And on the flip side, if you don't do it through a doctor, most of the women on welfare, would be claiming that their kids were conceived through private sperm donation, to avoid giving the father any paternal rights at all.

Again, This is about the child's right to support from the father, and not about the contract between two adults. -- Isab at January 24, 2014 7:32 PM

So then the child has a right to sue the doctor for terminating the child's father's parental "obligations" of support?

Speedreading late at night, Jenny Chancy seems to know what's up.

So then the child has a right to sue the doctor for terminating the child's father's parental "obligations" of support?

Posted by: Jim P. at January 24, 2014 9:50 PM

No, it was the state that did that, The doctor was just complying with state law. And the state has sovereign immunity.

Consistency alert!

Many people on this blog insist that the state has no business in "marriage". The previous commentary should be ample evidence that the state, acting as the tribe did in ages past, has a vested interest in the progeny of its citizens, and for good reasons.

This situation serves to illustrate just how ridiculous and complicated legal solutions become outside of the accepted procedures accompanying marriage.

No, it was the state that did that, The doctor was just complying with state law. And the state has sovereign immunity. -- Isab at January 25, 2014 6:37 AM

So then the state is saying the citizens within it's border are not allowed to make a contract without the state's interference ant therefore all it's citizens are incompetent.

Or am I reading that wrong?

Craigslist aside, how in the world could the courts ever find that someone who went to a sperm bank and signed away any claims for future child support against the 'anonymous' donor(s) come back and demand support?

That don't make no sense.

"Or am I reading that wrong?"

Posted by: Jim P. at January 25, 2014 8:30 AM

The state's not going to interfere with your making a contract. It's just not going to give credence to a contract that is void according to state law.

For example, in your home, make all the BDSM contracts you want - just don't go to court to get them enforced (and thanks to Lawrence v. Texas, you can stop worrying that The Law will break down your bedroom door and prevent them from being personally enforced).

A man and a woman cannot contract away the rights of a child, a third party. For more info, follow Isab's recommendations for reads on contract laws, or google contract enforceability, void and voidable clauses.

A man and a woman cannot contract away the rights of a child, a third party. For more info, follow Isab's recommendations for reads on contract laws, or google contract enforceability, void and voidable clauses. -- Michelle at January 25, 2014 3:30 PM

So if I go to my $10timmmy optometrist cousin and have him sign next to my signature and hers then it makes it legal?

"Or am I reading that wrong?"

JimP, I wonder why you say "state's interference".
As is clear from the bulk of case law and human history, society has a vested interest in the affairs of its citizens. The society is represented by a government.
Laws are definitions, written as statutes. Government, more so than individual, has a duty to operate by those laws. These produce records for the control of property in the administration of inheritance.
Certainly this is a burden. A responsible member of society should never expect a free ride, and the rights we enjoy are in fact paid for by the exercise of the commensurate responsibilities of citizenship.
But that's not interference. That is you performing your civic duty.

As is clear from the bulk of case law and human history, society has a vested interest in the affairs of its citizens. The society is represented by a government. --Radwaste at January 25, 2014 8:33 PM

I have to disagree with this. You are conflating society or culture with the government.

In the past the local society in your area dictated how you acted and what was expected from you, not the state, and certainly not the federal government.

So a woman was having a child out of wedlock she, and her family could make a decision that she left the local community and find a way to raise the child or put it up for adoption, usually through a faith based organization, but there were also secular groups around.

But in the modern society we live in the failed "War on Poverty", the failed "War on Drugs", The failed "War to stop Terrorism" and all the rest has said that the satate always has a right to say what you can do.

Read back through and tell me where asking "Why the government has a right to tell you what you can agree to." is based on your lberty.

Welfare is subservience to the government. But it isn't in the Federal Constitution, and I doubt it is most of the individual states' Constitutions either.

So the whole thing comes back to the fact that you, as a sovereign person, was stupid to give up your individual choice.

> serves to illustrate just how ridiculous
> and complicated legal solutions become
> outside of the accepted procedures
> accompanying marriage.

☑

> That don't make no sense.

Y'gitcher goo into a woman, you're Daddy.

People have known about this for a long time... Smart people, slow one, ever'buddy.

Fancypants lawyerin' got nuthin' to do with it.

"a child’s right to receive support from her biological family" is often a legal fiction. Child support goes to the mother, not the child. There is no mechanism in place to ensure that the money goes to the child's benefit, beyond the bare minimum required by CPS. That is, if Bill Gates was paying $100,000 a month in child support, there's nothing to require the mother to spend more on the child than a welfare family does.

Nor is child support always tied to _biological_ parenthood. In many states, the ex-husband is responsible no matter what the DNA test shows. Divorce your wife because she cheated and get to support her lover's child. In some areas, when a single mother goes on welfare, the welfare agency and DA will conspire to stick any available man with child support regardless of DNA - they get the mother to name a man, any man that has income, and send a notice to an outdated address. Then when he doesn't respond because he never received a notice, they get a default judgment, which cannot be overturned by a DNA test.

As for "following proper procedures", others have noted that paying a doctor to operate the turkey baster is no guarantee; the legislature or courts may change the law at any time and require sperm donors who did follow the proper procedures to pay. (Ex post facto law? Tell that one to someone who pled guilty to skinny-dipping 40 years ago and is now on a sex offender registry.)

I can think of one good reason to avoid using a doctor - several doctors in the artificial insemination business have been exposed as using their own sperm. And there's no way one of these freaks will be good for child support for his hundreds of offspring, so the state is still going to go after other men for the support.

" There is no mechanism in place to ensure that the money goes to the child's benefit, beyond the bare minimum required by CPS."

The mechanism is personal responsibility. Do what you need to do to avoid reproducing wih someone who you do not trust to do the right thing even when no one is looking, or whose idea of "the right thing" is at odds withs yours.

Jim, I don't even understand your last question. Above all, I see nothing that suggests to me that you've taken Isab's advice and taken even minimum steps to learn the fundamental concepts underlying he legal frameworks you keep bumping into. So I'm not going to respond to this or future iterations of what is essentially the same question.

I'm bowing out of this thread now to make the most of a short trip home.

So then the state is saying the citizens within it's border are not allowed to make a contract without the state's interference ant therefore all it's citizens are incompetent.

Or am I reading that wrong?

Posted by: Jim P. at January 25, 2014 8:30 AM

Yes, you are reading it wrong. The state provides something very valuable in the contract law area. It is called "enforcement". If the state doesnt recognize your contract for social reasons, it wont enforce it in court. And without legal enforcement, the contract is not worth the proverbial warm bucket of spit.

If you attempt to enforce contracts that the state doesnt recognize, you had better watch how you do it. Breaking someone's legs to collect on a poker debt, gets you charged with extortion, in additon to assault and battery. ,

Yes, you are reading it wrong. The state provides something very valuable in the contract law area. It is called "enforcement". If the state doesnt recognize your contract for social reasons, it wont enforce it in court. And without legal enforcement, the contract is not worth the proverbial warm bucket of spit. -- Isab at January 26, 2014 11:33 AM

So if a woman goes to a sperm clinic and wants to be inseminated with Asian sperm and they say it is legally not allwoed it isn't not worth the proverbial warm bucket of spit?

Let us make a special effort to stop communicating with each other, so we can have some conversation. -- Judith Martin

"Craigslist aside, how in the world could the courts ever find that someone who went to a sperm bank and signed away any claims for future child support against the 'anonymous' donor(s) come back and demand support?"

Gog, there was a case in Massechusetts where someone tried to do just that. Most states require that sperm banks keep records on donors. Those records are supposed to be sealed, but we all know how that works. The case made its way all the way to the Massechusetts Supreme Court, which eventually rejected the claim, but the fact that it was willing to hear the case was alarming to a lot of people in the field. Here's a news report from 2009; with a quick Bing search I wasn't able to find anything more recent.

So if a woman goes to a sperm clinic and wants to be inseminated with Asian sperm and they say it is legally not allwoed it isn't not worth the proverbial warm bucket of spit?

Posted by: Jim P. at January 26, 2014 8:12 PM

This isnt contract law. I dont know of any state that dsicriminates about the genetic origin of the sperm offered at a clinic. It probably would not pass constitutional muster. However the biggest abuser of the AI invetro process currenly known, is Octomom. God knows how much of that fiasco was picked up by the tax payers.
Maybe in order to use a clinic like that, you should have to post some kind of bond for future expenses.

But, as usual, you missed my point.

I dont know of any state that dsicriminates about the genetic origin of the sperm offered at a clinic. It probably would not pass constitutional muster. -- Isab at January 27, 2014 6:47 PM

Your words: If the state doesnt recognize your contract for social reasons, it wont enforce it in court.

So the state won't enforce for discrimination for social reasons but is not enforcing a private contract for social reasons because they supposedly had to have a clinic involded.

Which is it?