[photon]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

How would a woman prove the dude that knocked her up the old fashioned way wasn't a sperm donor? I can see paternaty lawyers all over licking their chops at this as a get out of jail free card for drunken idiots (like me),

'I swear to god yer honour I wacked off into a turkey baster, it may be my kid genetically but I never touched her and she can't prove otherwise!'

How does he prove he isn't? In this case not only is there a contract (which appears not to include the required stuff but that shouldn't all of a sudden make the donor a father, as I said the consequences far exceed the infraction, and I thought law was supposed to take that into account. You don't go to jail for life for littering.

There's also the way the parties were acting, so even if the contract runs afoul of the doctor requirement, the actions of all the parties demonstrates their intent; that the man be a donor, not an active participant.

Originally Posted by gargamel

Why not the mother who is no longer in the picture? If not her, then I'd say the taxpayers should bear the burden.

I agree, to say this guy should bear the burden just because he happens to have similar genetic code is silly.

Things change with time, technology changes, social structures change, laws should adapt, their intent is what's important, not how new things happen to fit into existing wording.

Originally Posted by Lchoy

I'm wondering if the fact that this is happening in Kansas, and it being a Lesbian relationship why they took the Craiglist route over the physician assisted route.

Lol my first reply was going to be:

A Kansas man

Originally Posted by 4X4

IMO, you you can't absolve a person from paternity obligations if you wrote a letter saying that he "donated" sperm via intercourse. You can absolve a person from paternity by using an independent third party clinic. These people chose to do something inbetween, and the line has to be drawn somewhere right around where this case lies. I think this guy should lose this case to set a precedent for similar cases.

Why does the line have to be drawn there? If all it is is a letter printed by one of the people that they all signed, that's still a legally binding contract and should be considered so, shouldn't it? People make legal agreements all the time without involving lawyers.

Or at the very least the court should take that into consideration in determining the intent and thereby the guy's responsibilities. EDIT: And when I say take into consideration I mean that the court could decide that because the 3 didn't use a lawyer or go through the proper channels that there has to be some penalty, but to say that penalty is child support payments for life when the intent of the 3 was clear is silly.