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.'"
I don't think you can blame the parents for "fucking over" the donor: it's the Kansas Department for Children and Families that has brought the case, and the recipients of the funds may not have a say in the matter.
Unfortunately decades of trying to get deadbeats to pay up means that the laws are very strict, and you are correct that everyone involved was stupid for thinking they could just throw together their own contract without bothering to check their state's laws on the subject.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Selfish dykes ruining shit for the rest of the lesbians...
From the summary: "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"
No sig today...
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.
While I broadly agree, it doesn't appear the lesbian couple actually asked for the guy to pay child support; that was all on the state's initiative.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
.... and you are correct that everyone involved was stupid for thinking they could just throw together their own contract without bothering to check their state's laws on the subject.
This is what's wrong with the legal system in my opinion. Intent means nothing these days. Crossing your T's and dotting your I's is all that matters...
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.
Like I say, years of "Oh, I meant to do that" from people who had no intention of doing so has made it all but impossible to get any leeway. If you give people an inch and they take a mile, that inch gets taken away again.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Never ejaculate anywhere near America.
I don't think you can blame the parents for "fucking over" the donor: it's the Kansas Department for Children and Families that has brought the case, and the recipients of the funds may not have a say in the matter.
They should have gone with the virgin Mary story and said that God was the father of the child.
What we should take from this is that it isn't wrong to help a lesbian couple out with getting a child but avoid giving them your name and home address.
While I broadly agree, it doesn't appear the lesbian couple actually asked for the guy to pay child support; that was all on the state's initiative.
Citing the above, since it's very relevant. The issue here is it's a government agency abusing a loophole (well, not really a loophole since it's intended, I suppose) to get paid back for $6000 in state services. They've essentially gotten a two for one deal - not only do they get reimbursed for the matter, but they also managed to set a nice little precedent for future cases like this.
In short, make sure the blame stays on the Kansas Department for Children and Families.
And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
I don't get sperm donation
On the one hand
Sounds like there was plenty of correctly-marked letters. Quite simply, the State decided that the defendant owed the State money, sued, and then ruled in its own favor.
Contracts waiving parental rights and responsibilities are commonplace and well-supported by law. If one truly exists here, and it's legitimate, then the judge screwed up.
The kid has two parents, so you could get the mother's partner to pay up rather than the father. The other woman explicitly chose to be a parent, thus the burden should be her responsibility. Why aren't they? Perhaps because this guy has more income so he's the guy they can extract money from, or perhaps they just think the law is written heteronormatively enough that this will work better.
I don't know the breakdown of $6000 of assistance but I wouldn't just assume that's over and above what another parent might get without more information, since there are numerous tax effects of having a kid. I'm not assuming the other way either. It's just really hard to infer from no information whatsoever.
Note that the state doesn't stop the extremely poor from having a kid together, and then target the midwife for child support payments. Why should this be any different? There were two parents signed up. If the state doesn't like the poor having kids, maybe the state can consider a solution that affects all poor people having kids (it's easy to imagine that going wrong, but it's an option).
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.
Screwed that up. Somehow the first part of my post was eaten.
For those that haven't researched the case, besides it being the State of Kansas suing, not the lesbians, they won't even see any money from the man even if the state wins, as the money will go to the state to repay the benefits given to the child.
Also, the couple was fine until they seperated(divorce anyone?) and one lost her job due to illness.
I don't read AC A human right
It seems like her relationship with her partner broke down. Sounds like they were fine when she got pregnant but subsequently things went wrong. It happens, and if the law was sensible it would hold her partner responsible for the child rather than the biological father. After all, they decided to have a child together as the two parents, on the basis of them both being able to care for and support it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Yeah, but that would mean that Kansas would have to admit that lesbians are people with equal rights and responsibilities. Not likely.
Actually you can blame them. They didn't have to tell anyone his name. They could have said "we don't know"... they chose to name him. And in naming him, they screwed him.
As to the government, they really don't amend their laws to take new circumstances into consideration. This whole sperm donor thing is not something the law understands at a deep level.
Should the judge be holding this guy accountable? Obviously not. But at some level it might not be entirely his fault since that might just be how the law is written and it isn't his job to say which laws are and are not reasonable. Rather, it is his job to judge how specific circumstances interact with the law.
In any case, let this be a lesson to men in general. Don't donate your sperm to two crazy girls over the internet.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
A woman can still get benefits without naming the possible dad. My ex did it with the kid she had before she met me and she was far from alone. The mother chose to name the Dad because then she gets benefits and child support. She's letting the state be the bad guy to keep the blame off of her for her own greed. Quit making excuses for others malicious behavior.
sure, but why should the donor pay for it?
This seems like the approximation of rule by law for the lowest common denominator. My suspicion is that it's just too much work to sort through things on a case-by-case basis.
Alternative headline: No Good Seed Goes Unpunished.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Unless you lose your job due to illness *after* the child is born. Which is what happened.
Try reading articles.
No sig today...
Given the amounts involved (it averages $100 per month) it might be that they assumed it was some blanket program. Some of it might be the state reclaiming money from blanket programs for everyone under a certain income threshold, things like free shots. It's not obvious.
Very true - also a lot of people here forget that circumstances can easily change. You could lose your job, become sick etc so that you need child support where you didn't previously. Claiming benefits does not automatically make you a greedy feckless scrounger.
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.
I think the problem is in your definition of parent. I don't think semen is a baby, or that ejaculation creates a parent. I believe the role of parent is one that should be entered into voluntarily. For instance: A woman in the USA should be allowed to take birth control pills. A woman should be able to have an abortion if she decides to not be a parent. She should be able to give a child up for adoption if she doesn't want it. Currently a mother can drop her child off at any safe-house, no questions asked, no 18 years of child support, and she doesn't even have to tell anyone (not even the father) that a child was born.
Now, I don't think a man should have control over a woman's body just because she's impregnated with his sperm. He shouldn't be able to force her to abort or carry to term his child. However, since Motherhood is voluntary in the USA, then in the interest of equality, Fatherhood should be voluntary too. A woman is not required by law to inform her partner about her taking of birth control, or forgetting to take it. A man should be able to wear a condom if he wants to. A man should be able to get a vasectomy without consulting with his partner (doctors frequently prevent the latter). A woman can choose not to carry the child, or to give it up for adoption or drop it off at a safe house, so a man should be allowed to opt-out of fatherhood as the woman can.
If the woman knows she can not force a man to be a father against his will, then maybe she will make different choices about bringing a life into the world she can not support -- or opt to give it up for adoption. The lesbian couple agreed to become parents, the sperm donor did not. When the lesbians split up, the other woman who was not pregnant but had agreed to be a parent should be the one paying child support -- It was these mothers' voluntarily agreeing to become parents, then reneging late in the game that caused the situation where child support was necessary. The lesbian couple adopted a donor's sperm and agreed to carry out the parenting roles that come with having a baby. That adoption is such a racket these days is a related, but altogether different matter. However, it's interesting that even in adoption you have people voluntarily entering parenthood -- The state doesn't just force people to raise a child against their will... unless the person is a man.
It's quite heinous to force a child to be raised by people who do not want it. Indeed, to prevent mothers from abandoning their babies in dumpsters we have the no-questions asked safe-house drop off. Men shouldn't control women's bodies, but it's ridiculous to not give men any reproduction rights at all, especially when allowing them to opt-out of fatherhood well before the child is born doesn't limit a woman's choices in the least: She can still decide to be a mother or not. It's quite telling that feminists actually lobby against even such small degree of male reproductive rights, meanwhile claiming to be in favour of, "Equality". This is why I support Women's Rights, not feminism: Part of the problem is that the mother's lesbian partner was not given the right to be the child's parent. Granted, there are official means for sperm donors to help the couple out, but in the interest of equality and fairness the Judge shouldn't have required the donor to pay child support -- He only recognized half of the lesbian couple's right to voluntary parenthood.
Education benefits from parental involvement. A sperm donor would be depriving the children of those useful resources.
You are delusional if you think that two lesbian women would necessarily be depriving their child of the useful resources of education and parental involvement.
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).
Doesn't the child have two parents (both women)?
Why are they unable to support the child they wanted?
Parental responsibilities are owed to a child and cannot be waived by a parent.
Wrong. parental rights can be waived. This is how adoptions work. Both birth parents have to waive their rights to the child.
stephen
The kid has two parents, so you could get the mother's partner to pay up rather than the father. The other woman explicitly chose to be a parent, thus the burden should be her responsibility. Why aren't they? Perhaps because this guy has more income so he's the guy they can extract money from, or perhaps they just think the law is written heteronormatively enough that this will work better.
Well, the simple answer to your question of "Why aren't they?" is because Kansas has a constitutional amendment in place that prohibits the state from recognizing the non-biological mother in that relationship as part of that family. She's just a roommate as far as the eyes of the law are concerned. Therefore, the state's only recourse is to go after the biological father despite any contract that he and the biological mother may have signed.
Virgin Mary story would have lost them benefits from the state. This is a story of the Govt controlling who can have kids and who can't and one could even argue it's discrimination by the govt, because by saying "all your signed legal donor contracts are worthless" the govt is essentially saying "sorry lesbians if you want children you better pay $20,000+ for artificial insemination from a doctor" and requiring same sex couples to pay $20,000 or their child isn't really theirs is a great way to prevent same sex couples from having children at all. With the court ruling the father is still legally the father in this case means any same sex couple who had a child without artifical insemination could face a custody battle someday.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
I would go another direction and say that the problem with the legal system is how arbitrarily it is applied. Critics of the ruling have pointed out that the law was not really intended for this usage and this is the first time it has been applied this way by a state service that does not exactly have the best reputation for tracking down deadbeats who actually are a parent. So it was an unusual usage of the law and an unusual amount of state effort put into it, all to go after someone who helped lesbians in a political climate where certain people are having additional weight put on them for fear they are being 'uppity'.
.officials who have all their expenses paid while the person who it is being applied to pays out of their own pocket.
Sadly, even crossing your Is and dotting your Ts is less important then when you have officials looking to score points by hurting you...
sure, but why should the donor pay for it?
Because it's _always_ the man's fault.
You're correct, but isn't it sad?
If you really think it is so sad, why don't you call up the Kansas DCF, and volunteer to support the kid yourself? It may be sad that the responsibility is being forced on an unwilling dad, but it would be sadder if it was forced on unwilling taxpayers.
Because that's not allowed. Only parents can have any say in anything about a child. Except the police. And DCF. And the state legislature.
What's sad is that the state is using a technicality to override a valid contract, over the objections of all other parties. I wonder what impact this may have on parental rights contracts in adoptions? The issues are very similar - sign your parental rights over another party. So if an adoptive parent goes on welfare, can the welfare office retroactively cancel the adoption because it cost the state money?
I think the base issue is that Kansas doesn't consider the lesbian relationship as legitimate and binding. If this same situation had played out with a female mother and an male, but infertile, father, there would have been no question that both bore financial responsibility for the child regardless of the method of conception. Because the relationship is not recognized, mother mother and mother father are not jointly responsible, and a third party is brought into the support equation.
I don't care about the morals, traditions and threats of divine retribution; the state is doing a disservice to all citizens by not recognizing the non-traditional "marriages" under common law. In this case they seek to recoup $6000 from a third party, and will no doubt pick up far more than $6000 in legal expenses as this nonsense winds through the courts. Make the non-traditionals bear the same social responsibility as the more conventional family units. I am less concerned about any moral implications of such relationships than I am about the lack of responsibility that is afforded to participants in the non-traditional relationship because the state fails to recognize them. The state's perverted thinking on this matter brings real costs to the people whose moral values they are allegedly protecting.
Marry them, tax them, and let them bear the cost of their choices like the rest of us. Share the pain.
Dear mods: This doesn't count as "funny" (quite the opposite), but rather, "insightful".
US case law pretty much accepts that as a de facto standard - In the absence of staggeringly overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the guy gets screwed while the woman gets whatever she asks for.
So, her body, her right, her choice, is somehow his responsibility? If women want sole control over the reproductive process ("It's a woman's issue"), then they should have sole responsibility too. If she wants a man to help, then she has to get him to sign a contract/get married and only have children by him. Now, THAT is equitable. The current status quo is privilege for women at the expense of men.
There's a chance you were trolling/joking, but despite that, you were modded insightful anyway. This shows how badly feminism has biased the society against men.