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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Because the pointless paperwork will do nothing to make a couple stick together/protect the "unwanted" child; it just ensures work/money for suits all the way down from doctors to politicians.
I'm glad I left and its power is declining. This is retarded on pretty much any level
So much BULLSHIT, USA leads the world in EVERYTHING
Specially the BULLSHIT
(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.
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.
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
Give me some examples please. I'm a native that left for northern England (not hugely better, but much less corruption and much nicer people than NY) in 2009. I travel a lot with work, having spent at least 3 months in each of Germany, Italy, Spain, Belguim, Sweden, Finland and Iran since 09. I admit 3 months isnt a huge amount of time to find out that much about a country but I would pick any of those countries to live in over NY with the exception of Iran where I was hated purely for having a US accent. This isn't unusual or isolated to Iran, it seems everywhere I go is pretty anti American, even England and the European countries I've visited.
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
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.
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.
You had a point in there somewhere?
Or just shaking your head because you don't understand.
RTFA dingus. Do it within the confines of the law or pay the price.
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
with the jizz wizz...
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
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
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!!!
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
"currently contracting in Austin, Texas"
"Majority of people I have met are fake and full of shit opportunists,"
You sound like a fake and full of shit opportunist yourself.
Nothing about technology, nothing geeky at all. Just some gender politics.
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.
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.
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.
Huh? This is about providing for a child who's been brought into this world. By a couple, or a single person (genders aside). Nothing here suggests anybody having to stay together, although in real life, you should take that into consideration for the benefit of the child.
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
You are at the wrong place to experience the famous "Southern Hospitality".
New Economic Perspectives
Yet another attack by the family courts on the ability of adults to make contracts amongst themselves.
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...
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"
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.
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.