Slashdot Mirror
Court Says Craigslist Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "David Stout reports at Time Magazine that what began with a Craigslist ad from a lesbian couple calling for a sperm donor in rural Topeka, Kansas ended in court on Wednesday with a judge ordering the sperm donor to pay child support. The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in October 2012 seeking to have William Marotta declared the father of a child born to Jennifer Schreiner in 2009 so he can be held responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance the state provided, as well as future child support. 'In this case, quite simply, the parties failed to perform to statutory requirement of the Kansas Parentage Act in not enlisting a licensed physician at some point in the artificial insemination process, and the parties' self-designation of (Marotta) as a sperm donor is insufficient to relieve (Marotta) of parental right and responsibilities to the child,' wrote Judge Mattivi. Marotta opposed that action, saying he had contacted Schreiner and her partner at the time, Angela Bauer, in response to an ad they placed on Craigslist seeking a sperm donor and signed a contract waiving his parental rights and responsibilities. 'We stand by that contract,' says Defense attorney Swinnen adding that the Kansas statute doesn't specifically require the artificial insemination be carried out by a physician. 'The insinuation is offensive, and we are responding vigorously to that. We stand by our story. There was no personal relationship whatsoever between my client and the mother, or the partner of the mother, or the child. Anything the state insinuates is vilifying my client, and I will address it.'"
Serves him right. Helping lesbians and having a child has consequences - for life. This is a just sentence. Men must pay.
Selfish dykes ruining shit for the rest of the lesbians...
First of all, if you need public assistance then maybe you shouldn't be having children. Second of all, if you cannot have children in a normal way then maybe you shouldn't be fucking over the people that help you have one in an abnormal way. Thirdly, fuck everyone involved for going to craigslist for this shit. What. The. Fuck.
"His name was James Damore."
Let's be a trifle more charitable here.
It seems as though the state pursued this case off it's own bat. If you'd fallen on hard times and the state told you to name the father of your child or potentially not eat and have that child taken away from you, what would you do? The state is overreaching here, and it may well not be the mother's fault she's fallen on hard times. It can happen to anyone, through illness, divorce, sudden unemployment. The idea that all people who need state support are mere leeches is a poisonous stereotype perpetuated to justify the laissez-faire, let 'em starve approach taken by money-minded politicians and their aparatchiks.
Sucks to be him...
Never ejaculate anywhere near America.
On the one hand, I think it would be neat to make money by self-pleasure. On the other hand, I feel that sperm donation is a bit icky.
On a genetic level, it's little different than offering your kid for adoption. Actually, it's about half your kid. If you have fashionable features, it's a good way to spread your genes to the next generation.
On a social level, it's basically making babies without parental responsibility, and without the fun of sex or the possibility of venereal disease. I don't see how you could in good conscience make babies with the intent of selling them off. Furthermore, fashionable sperm donors sometimes become the genetic fathers of many, many children. Sometimes the children start dating without knowing that they're genetic half-siblings.
Increasingly, medicine is benefiting from family history tracking. Education benefits from parental involvement. A sperm donor would be depriving the children of those useful resources.
Have a nice time.
It will start at $100 a month - but what happens if the kid goes to University or gets sick. he could be bankrupted.
Keep it in your draft folder!
If the couple isn't involved, then adopt..
Yeah, that's right - you know they want that money..
This case will make it that much harder for lesbian couples to obtain a sperm donor. Like many laws and regulations, it'll ensure that things only occur when the proper people (in this case fertility clinics) get their cut.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
[shaking my head] In a country of "believers" and "Gawd and Taliban fearing people", Kansas takes Pride of Fools Place.
In this case it'll go to the state to repay the benefits they paid out for the child. Even after that they'll take a cut for 'managing' the payments.
I don't read AC A human right
The law prevents these people from agreeing upon a contract and then carrying it out, even if the contract broke no other law.... Gotta love the arcana of law.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
War on Women!
Fugg you for even suggesting that. War on women?
So let's see, we have a kid whom nobody wants, moms took off, biological "dad" wants no piece of it, nor the state, and this is somehow about war on women?
Bring it on, I got karma to burn.
.
Just look at what those women are looking for. They want a father who's six foot plus, has advanced college degrees and other criteria that can be hard to find in a bar, dating service or just around. Because yeah, if a woman - any woman - wanted to get pregnant, all she's have to do is walk into a bar at 1AM and grab the nearest guy by the crotch and just say "Let's go!".
A woman can walk into a bar and get any man she wants. A man walks into a bar and gets any woman he can get. - Richard Lewis.
Go to a sperm bank and ask.
He should enter a delayed (financial) rape claim. He was financially coerced into it, yeronner! They forced it on him! He was emotionally fragile and suggestionable, and was induced by bad advice, slick marketing, and glitzy décor.
Reason enough to start a crowdfunding campaign? Or, does that sound too much like what the banks do?
On the other ... er, on the "bright" side, he won't be getting sued over the ones raised as organ donors. Unless someone sues for "product liability", of course. How does a "recall" work, under those conditions? Oh, wait, yes. Of course. That could *never* happen! Just me being totally paranoid again, that's all. Of course, Shirley.
And yes, the real victims are the children being dragged through this. Being alive has its perks and high points. I trust a lot of them get the love and support every child needs from its "everyday" parents.
um like what a f.uck.ed up ruling
the usa is screwed now ...no one is gonna donate period and your all gonna japanese yourselves to nothing
No.
(IANAG)
Each child receives 23 chromosomes from his/her mother, and 23 chromosomes from his/her father. Two of those are XX or XY. As far as inbreeding is concerned, the remaining 44 chromosomes also matter. Half-siblings share about a quarter of their chromosomes (on average). If they're of opposite genders, then it's just under a quarter.
To be clear, the real problem with inbreeding isn't that it causes bad genetic mutations, but that it brings them to the surface. Horrific genetic disorders that are dominant don't tend to propagate. They (or their kids) don't tend to survive to maturity and/or have trouble finding mates. Recessive disorders, however, lurk all over the place. I don't know if it's true or not, but I heard a professor say at one point that each of us carries about 3 major genetic disorders. They're not a problem because they're recessive. They're wide, and varied, so the chance that two carriers of the same disorder marry is pretty small (but does happen). Enter in-breeding into the equation. Suddenly there's a much higher chance that two carriers of the same disorder will marry, and some of their children may have major medical complications. (The same principle applies to minor genetic problems too.)
Animal husbandry often uses inbreeding intentionally to remove recessive genetic defects. They do so at the risk of getting very ill offspring... intentionally to weed them out. This does tend to lead toward a genetically homogeneous population, and therefore slows the rate of evolution. So, it's a trade off.
So is it good or bad for humans? I don't know. In the short term, it can be very, very bad. In the long term, we are probably benefiting from the added genetic diversity. Inbreeding might remove some of that. I'm going to tentatively say that we should probably avoid it.
(Not being a professional in this field, I am almost certainly missing something.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
I'm glad I left and its power is declining. This is retarded on pretty much any level
O, it's another nose picker blog post redu.
was it Kansas where f.ing chicken on Sundays were illegal? I guess even if this law still stands it is better to f*k chicken than females these days. Less expensive at least if the animal rights activists do not know about it. Come to think of 'relationships' in financial terms them males have bad cards along the way. If, what is the fare of majority, your relationship is to fail you will pay. Not even premarital agreement can save you as first wife of Boris Becker showed us. Quite frankly I am not sure if the possible trouble is worthwhile anyway. Looking at mostly neurotic females that consumed too much media showing unrealistic view of relationships (and they lived happily ever after etc) and at the rights of those bitches I see no point. Let us take an educated guy, especially with autistic traits and look at his probable soul mates - how many of them there can be in the whole country? Even assuming that one finds such individual, the chemistry is OK and the date is successful, relationship goes on, even then the ability to sue his arse off is always there and this affects female behaviour in conscious and unconscious ways. After all why not to sue if relationship is over anyway and courts can give you a bigger part of the pie? I am not arguing for abstaining but if even using condoms is not saving you from malice what else can you do to ensure that what you worked for is not destroyed by your ex 'companion for life' or ONS? Few friends did a cut in private parts called vasectomy - this does the trick. If one likes it then popo-sex is an option I suppose.
(Posting while tired, subject to mistakes.)
Inbreeding isn't nearly as dangerous as it is made up to be, do if for generations and sure it can go terrible wrong but lets assume siblings have kids and it doubles the risk of genetic diseases, if it was 1% it is now 2%
That's backwards, actually. The less often inbreeding happens, the more dangerous. (Not that I'm advocating.)
I had a professor once say that we're all carriers of about 3 bad genetic mutations. Because these are so varied, people rarely marry with the same problem.
So, let's assume "Bob" only carries one bad recessive mutation (not on a sex chromosome), and he passes it onto half of his kids. If you grab any two of his kids, there is a 1/4 chance that both will be carriers. (This is equally true of half-siblings, since they both inherit half of Bob's DNA.) If they marry and have kids, 1/4 of them will receive broken copies from both parents, and will be terribly ill.
Assuming each person is a carrier of 3 major genetic disorders* , then the chance would be 1- (1 - 1/16)^3 ~= 17.6%, and not 2%, per child. (regardless of how common or rare those particular three disorders are)
*(Yeah, yeah, citation needed; I heard it from a genetics professor in a 101 class; it could be way off and I wouldn't know any better, but he ought to know.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
When people say that discrimination hurts everybody, even the people who supposedly benefit from it, this is what they mean.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
This is not a troll. It will probably start a flamewar, but as a father of a submarine child (a child you have no idea is there, but pops up years later), I have to say I side with Kansas on this.
But only under the condition that the father be given full parental rights.
Let me explain where I'm coming from on this.
Prior to 9-11-2001 I was dating a girl, we fought a lot, broke up and I entered the Navy.
A decade later I get a call from DFS (Child support collection agency). They want me to pay 10 years back support on a kid I had no idea was mine.
He passed the genetic test, and it turns out I had a son.
Unfortunately, the kid has been seriously messed up. Major psychological issues as his mom bounced from one abusive alcoholic to another.
Her life was a mess and she had 7 kids by 7 different fathers in the intervening years. She was living off the child support of these guys, most of whom were deadbeats. Of course I was earning 6 figures so my child support obligation (going forward) was more than enough to secure a proper life for her and all of her kids including my son.
Fastforward a few years. I was angry and hurt at first. But I've seen a major improvement in the boy. He's getting proper counseling to cope with his issues, diet and excersize and turning off the damned video games seems to be a big help as well. However he credits finally having a stable father figure as being the #1 thing that has helped him improve.
Sure I could be a selfish jerk. Hell I've got 3 kids with my current wife. My CS to the boy's mom was a major impact to our finances. But the fact remains, for the good of society FATHERS MUST BE THERE.
Yeah take his money, but be damned sure to give him time with the kid. Kids need fathers.
Sperm donors are like blood donors, you got nothing for volunteering the effort, and you dont get to choose where your stuff will going to end up.
It only makes sense that a man can abort his child under the same circumstances that a woman can abort her child. The only difference is that, unlike abortion for women, the child may survive (depending on the mother's choice). In other words, it's not a physical abortion because only women have that choice.
The man who aborts his child will not be held responsible for the child's welfare and will not have access to the child. It's that simple and it would have saved all of this grief.
Why should a woman have control over a man's wallet just because she wants to carry the chile to term? It's the same argument made for abortion rights only up until those rights have been selectively applied.
So the moral of the story is... don't give out your real name to one-night stands on Craigslist?
It doesn't matter that the couple was lesbian.
What matters is that everyone involved needed to be working with someone who understood the statutory and administrative law of Kansas. No state makes it easy to opt-out of parental obligations and least of all when social services has to pick up the tab.
There's a difference between donating some genetic material to a couple who can't conceive on their own, and being a father.
This man, at the request of the couple he was donating the material to, signed away any rights/claims to being a father. This is completely and utterly wrongheaded on behalf of the state, and I hope the man is able to take it to appeals.
And I say that as a lesbian who has been in a similar situation to the women in this case. (we ended up not having kids, but were looking at the possibility).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Fresh into returning to the field of Tax Prep, maybe there was a potential other angle of this, and I look forward to anyone chiming in about this. But what if you fight the "grumpy dog" (Child Svc) with a Grumpier Dog? (IRS)!?
When you file/filed your taxes, even though maybe you're smart enough to usually do stuff yourself, go to a really good tax prep service on purpose and then file your return. The Claiming rules from the IRS have pretty fierce residency duration checks. The point here is not about the tax effects, it's to use the preparer's credentials (and file with an Enrolled Agent etc) who can aggressively back up your case from day one.
So then when it bounces around at the Child Svc level, that "Phone Call" would go to an IRS rep back to Child Svc of the state.
Not an easy path to take but it might work.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Good Jorb, ladies.
...ever goes unpunished.
I wonder if this will help or hurt future same-sex couples find sperm donors, egg donors, and surrogate mothers - all of which could find themselves caught up in a similar web of unintended consequences...
Ken
Proves that 2 females isn't enough to raise a child. They should known the expenses it would take to raise a kid, and knew they did not have enough money to support a child and not have a child. That is probably why they didn't adopt a child, because they were too poor.
I was being sarcastic, of course, but this sort of news will certainly discourage guys from assisting lesbian couples. The couples will have to go pay full price at a fertility clinic for sperm. Is that not a logical consequence of this case? Does this not increase costs for the women involved? One guy gets screwed over by the court. Hundreds (Kansas) or thousands (National) of lesbian couples won't be able to find economical sperm donors. Buying sperm from a clinic will run north of $500. Yes, they ought to be able to swing $500+ if they want to have a kid. But should they have to?
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
They were the ones not following procedures.
Hey Fox, are you going to cover this story where Kansas, a firmly Republican state, has all these regulations governing what a person can and can't do with their own body, or are you going to keep whining about the regulations for clean air and water?
Yeah, thought not.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
This is exactly what happened with me. When my wife and I married she had two kids from a previous marriage, but she had sole custody from the divorce. We were married in November so I didn't claim the kids that first year on my taxes as I had not supported them for more than 6 months, but that first year we filed separately so she could claim them (suggested by my tax preparer). The second year she hadn't worked (we had a boy of our own) and that year I claimed all 3 kids.
The IRS contacted us saying the two older kids socials had already been used in a filing, from her ex husband. Note that even though he had been ordered to pay child support, she never received a dime from him (the kids are all grown now and he never contacted them until the youngest of the two hit 18). We got in touch with the IRS office locally, showed them where we had custody and they had lived with us for the entire 12 months of the year.
Not only did the IRS go after her ex and slap him with penalties and fines, they even re-evaluated our returns and gave my wife a child care credit for the first year. So I agree with TaoPhoenix, don't hesitate to use other means if you can prove fraud.
so in other words you were not in a similar situation.
I concur for "normal people." My ex is not normal people. She's unreachable in most cases. Even by the justice system. I can't tell you how many times over the course of the 20+ years I have not laid eyes on her that I get a call from some legal or law enforcement or other office seeking her whereabouts. (Honestly, I enjoy the calls... it's a reminder that she did me a huge favor by leaving me because my life got SO much better when she did.) She also claimed the children on taxes. And every year, proof to the contrary had to be delivered to the IRS like clockwork... that is until they got old enough. It's history now. It was drama back then. Because you know? If it was a man making these false claims, they would have come after him with guns drawn. But because it was her? They presume innocence. They presume ignorance (which is not an excuse under the law for men). They presume all manner of things and the result is invariably lots of slack which a man never gets.
There's a difference between donating some genetic material.....
Unfortunately, in the United States of Litigation, I fear it will be a short leap of logic for this precedent to be extended to other situations. What if a deadbeat parent who owes back taxes dies in a car accident? Will the recipients of any organ donations then take on the responsibilities of said donor? Will the government refuse to even allow the donations to occur unless the potential recipients pay the bills of the deceased?
I would be willing to wager that some lawyer (state, federal or private) will look at the legality of this (and potential income) if this poor precedent is allowed to stand
Guy signs private contract with couple unable to conceive (because they're lesbians with no seed, or heterosexual and sterile or infertile, it really doesn't matter) to donate his sperm and couple agrees to waive all parental responsibility for the donor.
Woman signs a contract with couple unable to conceive (because they're gay men with no womb, or heterosexual and sterile or infertile, it really doesn't matter) to donate part of her body for a period of time and couple agrees to waive all parental responsibility for the donor.
In the former situation, a guy is extremely fortunate if his life isn't ruined in the process. In the latter, the woman is seen as some example of nobility and honor. Admittedly, it takes more effort, but they are effectively the same thing.
And the state is pursuing this because they didn't get their cut? Is it just me, or does that technically make the state... a pimp?
Oh that's cute, you think there's no man anywhere who could behave the same way.
I could tell you a story about my sister's ex-husband, and how he stuck her with their IRS bills, and how he's always gotten off clean from his misadventures, but it would probably blow your mind.
than Twilight!
Women are terrible people.
Oh that's nice. All a man has to do is sign away his rights/claims and he is no longer responsible. That would be convenient for all the deadbeats out there.
"If God had intended us to walk he would not have invented roller skates." -- Willy Wonka
Somehow their twisted logic takes situations like this and throws them out the window when they state that "mens' rights advocates are hate groups."
with the jizz wizz...
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
If you were a mother you'd deprive your kid of needed resources? Somehow I think you'd find plenty of justifications for why men can't "sign away" being a father.
Of course women do it all the time, are praised exercising their "choice", but that's because they are morally superior (or is it inferior?) to men
And did they come after your sister with guns drawn? Did they arrest her at work? Did they attack her wages without her involvement in an investigation of the matter? That's the sort of thing they do to men. I suspect she got a letter stating "you owe this much. please respond with money or a reason for your dispute of this claim."
Kansas can claim that there is no danger in donating to a "legal" sperm bank, but we can bet that every deadbeat dad lawyer in the country will now be combing state law for loopholes they can use to nail men for child support. The DNA link to specific births they need is right there for all the courts to see. "But...but...donor records are anonymous in my state!", you're going to say. Yeah, like that phone call metadata you thought were confidential.
You get guys like this who donate sperm, and don't wish to take on parental rights being declared the father and getting ass-raped for massive amounts of money.
Then you get cases like Jason Patric. He goes through a bad breakup. And his ex shops jurisdiction and gets him declared a sperm donor. After he's been part of the child's life, and has every interest in raising the child and being part of its life.
Basically, things are so screwed up in our legal system nowadays that it's become "If you have a dick, you're in the wrong."
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
If they are already saying it is my child, then I would sue for full custody. Since the mother has fallen on such hard times it should be a cut and dry case. Seems like the best way to say "F*** you" to this double-crosser.
I remember seeing this (http://www.wibw.com/home/localnews/headlines/Non-Birth-Parent-Seeks-Role-In-Sperm-Donor-Case-202418201.html) regarding some of the additional information about the case. Am I wrong in thinking that this suggests the member of the couple who didn't become pregnant, even though they split, wanted to have a role in the support and care of the child? And the state said "no" and went after the sperm-donor? That seems to respond to many of the posts I've seen regarding the original post.
OK, let me see if I understand:
"It's her body, her right to choose" (to have an abortion). It is a meaningless mass of tissue that can be disposed of at the mother's convenience. The father gets no say because logically, it's the woman and her body that are at stake.
"Pay me the money" Yet if they decide not to abort, the CONSEQUENCES of the decision will have a lifetime impact financially on the sperm donor/father.
Isn't that nearly taxation without representation? Essentially a choice is being made about my (male) future wealth without my participation.
IF the choice to continue/not continue a pregnancy is your choice, the consequence is your responsibility.
If the consequences fall partially on me, I better have a goddamn say.*
*And for those of you who would respond "You had your say, you stuck it in" - in FACT I'd agree with you. But if you go down that road, then you also have to concede that women MADE THEIR CHOICE when they allowed it to be stuck in. Certainly, rape happens, and in cases of rape I would indeed say that is the sole circumstance where a woman IS of course entitled to make the decision without the father. But let's also remember that not all rape is actually rape, as Roe v Wade clearly showed (she claimed rape, it wasn't).
-Styopa
If the couple (and the guy) had gone through a licensed physician (they didn't, according to the article) and obtained artificial insemination that way, it would likely not have been an issue. As it stands, they instead put out a Craigslist ad for a guy. That implies that he either more or less "donated" by having sex with one of them, or used an otherwise unofficial medical process.
I'm not familiar with the sperm donation process (especially not in Kansas), but I would assume that proper donors actually sign something to protect their anonynimity so that they CAN'T get called on for child support.
Nothing about technology, nothing geeky at all. Just some gender politics.
That's what he gets for living in Kansas; home of the Westboro Baptist Church.
If he has to pay child support, then he should reclaim parental rights also.
Another idiotic item begging for comment as well is weather channel naming each and every snow storm . Unless they are actually creating these storms, I don't believe they have the right to name them. But way beyond the question of right has to be "HOW FUCKING STUPID" it is to have each and every storm tossed at us bearing some ridiculously idiotic human name.
Really? Because I'm fairly sure that - from this perspective - it works the same with a doctor-assisted donor or adoption, and in those situations the state has no case against the donor.
no one owes or deserves support. those with another opinion can donate if so they chose.
spawn benefit from more caring predecessors. so what. care or not, is a choice thing.
I care but money is the least of what I give should give etc.
Stupid hate crime laws assume intent even where there is no evidence that race, religion, gender or orientation played any role in the crime. Mug someone who happens to be Jewish or gay or ..., then you may be facing a federal hate crime charge too.
The mans lawyer will file an appeal and it will be heard in front of a higher court. The only reason he could get off [no pun intended] is the fact the gay couple advertised for a donor. It wasn't an attempt on the guys part to intentional cause an unwanted pregnancy thru illicit means...
The law is obviously to prevent idiots from knocking up women then getting away with not paying child support. Thus using a doctor takes any responsibility from the donor and any chance at blackmail from the receiver/mother.
The guy is an idiot, but he probably supports gays rights to a child and felt he was doing a good thing. Not many people bother to check on there state laws over the stupidest of shit. Especially when they're trying to do something they didn't feel was harming anyone.
is this a /. story? News for Nerds - check the law before giving away your sperm.
Oh that's nice. All a man has to do is sign away his rights/claims and he is no longer responsible. That would be convenient for all the deadbeats out there.
There is no contract without a meeting of the minds and mutual consent. The key here is that the man wanted to sign away all of his parental rights but also (and this is the key point) the lesbian couple wished to assume those rights. Such a contract is not a "get out of jail free" card for deadbeat dads. It would be similar to a mother and father signing away their parental rights in order for a child to be adopted. At that point the state no longer legally considers them parents of the child but the rights and responsibilities of parenthood and assumed by another couple. I think this decision is silly.
Do you think the IRS never sends out those letters to men, but always responds with an immediate armed squad? Or that they never treat a woman as a potential threat?
I suspect you are taking an exceptional circumstance and assuming it reflects the norm.
There's a difference between donating some genetic material to a couple who can't conceive on their own, and being a father.
This man, at the request of the couple he was donating the material to, signed away any rights/claims to being a father. This is completely and utterly wrongheaded on behalf of the state, and I hope the man is able to take it to appeals.
And I say that as a lesbian who has been in a similar situation to the women in this case. (we ended up not having kids, but were looking at the possibility).
To whom did he sign away his rights and claims to being a father? The couple? That doesn't work - the support obligation is to the child, not the couple. If he's going to sign away his rights and obligations, he has to have it accepted by the child or a guardian ad litem for the child.
For example, say I backed into your car this morning, denting it. Well, I just signed a paper signing away my obligations to you, so it'd be unfair if you went to court and got a judgement against me, right? No, because I can't unilaterally waive that obligation without the consent of the obligee - you. Similarly, the father can't sign away his support obligation to the child unless a guardian ad litem accepts. In Kansas, this is done as part of the official donation process, but he didn't use that - instead, he showed up at their door with three cups of fresh squeezed sperm. So, he hasn't actually fulfilled the requirements to waive that obligation anymore than I can waive my responsibility to you by signing a paper without your consent.
If you didn't live under a rock, you'd know that happens all the time. Men can and do sign away being a father any time a child given up for adoption has an acknowledged father. The adoption isn't legal without it. Mothers can and do sign away being a mother in exactly the same way, with the only difference being there is always a legal mother.
Ether go full legal as you say; or go full anon.
Ether one solves the problem from the sperm donor POV.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
if both party's have no interest in child support simply send the money back to the guy the state cant do shit about that.
Damn! those are some UGLY lesbians. I was gonna say it wasn't fair for the state to take this guy's money since he didn't even get laid, but good god, he really lucked out on this one. I feel sorry for the turkey baster.
Deliberately choose to have a child and deny it a father, and not have the means to support said child.
F*#K ME, RIGHT?
These are the most selfish people on the planet.
Parents routinely are allowed to waive parental responsibility. Its called adoption. I haven't heard of the states going after other sperm donors.
I have encountered more than one man who has considered donating to a lesbian couple without consulting a lawyer first, much like this man did. Do not do this. Consult a lawyer first or regret it later.
These stuff will not happen in places like China.
American Caucasian woman are especially a bitch. If you need to get married in the USA, stick with educated conservatives, Asians or Hispanics.
I am speaking as a Asian-American male.
Worst come worst, leave the country.
New Economic Perspectives
Yet another attack by the family courts on the ability of adults to make contracts amongst themselves.
They will do absolutely anything. Whatever you think or agreed upon does not mean anything. Desperate people are like wild dogs. Unpredictable, and they will bite anyone and destroy everything.
I don't want to use your broken beta. Thanks, anonymous coward.
Of course people are using food stamps, it's free money. You don't have to be starving to get it. No job? Here's a $200 a month food credit card. Who would turn that down? I know a few people who get them and most will sell them for half price and eat their parents/friends food. The demand for free stuff doesn't mean there is desperate need for said free stuff.
The guy should have given them a fake name and used a $15 throwaway cell phone. Can't sue who you can't find.
If i was told i had to be the father of this kid i would get FULL custody and then the state would get JACK SHIT from me. The mother should have kept her shut anyone saying she couldnt do so is full of it. They dangled the benefits in front of her she wanted them so she gave him up.
so in other words you were not in a similar situation.
Merely because they decided against? This isn't the first time a sperm donor has been gone after for child support, and it doesn't even take much effort to know this...
So I gather from the article that the defendent thinks that what amounts to payed sex is going to work as a legitimate legal substitute for artificial insemination...
Right....
Don't worry my fellow mysoginist, your typical brain possessing male doesn't have to be scared that sperm donations are going to mean child support.
Never ejaculate anywhere near America.
At least, not without your lawyer present. ;-)
To be safe, your lawyer and all parties involved should probably be male.
(I wonder if this court recognizes their attempt to defend heterosexual reproduction is also indirectly championing gay sex? I guess it's a reproductive politics version of the "dropping a cat with an open-face peanut butter sandwich on its back" paradox.)
"Kansas Welcomes You And Reminds You Of The Severe Consequences Of Non-Homosexual Sex"
For example, say I backed into your car this morning, denting it. Well, I just signed a paper signing away my obligations to you, so it'd be unfair if you went to court and got a judgement against me, right? No, because I can't unilaterally waive that obligation without the consent of the obligee - you.
False analogy: You can sign it over to a third party with their consent, without necessarily consulting me. In fact, you probably already have. You got car insurance?
Not only that, but as long as one of you covers the damages, I'm not going to care.
If we're going to be extremely accurate, if I make a claim through my insurance they're going to be the ones going after you(r insurance) for payment, because that's how it works, too.
The obligation here, and with a gamete donor, is not being waived but rather being transferred--and it is in the best interests of all parties that the rights & responsibilities transfer.
What people can do without proof has to be fought...
Like voting?
A man who raises a child that he later finds out is not his, and they know who the real father is, is responsible because of because.
A man who provides sperm as a doner is responsible because he is responsible because of because.
Something tells me that in the holy and apostolic Christian empire of Kansas, that there is some real fundamentalist political weight attached to this decision.
Kinda like putting those lesbians in their place by punishing a likely donor and preventing any more from donating.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I have warned my children to beware of combining their DNA with any but the most wonderful people - a judgement call to be sure, but the older one is the better one gets at it. I wish the posters venting here about exes and whatnot would give their ages at the time they conceived a child. IMHO - your DNA in an innocent child makes you responsible in a globally genetic sense because, if not YOU, then WHO?
There is gonna be a LOT of feminism hatred in this comments section, isn't there?
I suppose if you have sex with a prostitute, you can be held responsible if they have a child from that "contractual" agreement as well. Supposing they can get your name or even just get your license plate number.