"Dad" forced to pay child support.

[undercoverbrother]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...418_story.html

A Kansas man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple after answering an online ad is fighting the state’s efforts to suddenly force him to pay child support for the now 3-year-old girl, arguing that he and the women signed an agreement waiving all of his parental rights.

It seems this is driven by the state, odd.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Why wouldn't the woman who left be on the hook instead of the biological father?

[Nehkara]

nm, probably would help if I read the article before commenting.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

Why wouldn't the woman who left be on the hook instead of the biological father?

IIRC, the did not use a "medcial professional" to deliver the "goods".

[troutman]

I was waiting for someone to post this story.

What is unique about this case:

When a single mother seeks benefits for a child, it’s routine for the department to try to determine the child’s paternity and require the father to make support payments to lessen the potential cost to taxpayers.

Court records show that Marotta, Schreiner and Bauer signed an agreement in March 2009, with the women agreeing to “hold him harmless” financially. The agreement also said the child’s birth certificate would not list a father.

But the state contends the agreement isn’t valid because a doctor wasn’t involved.

Under a 1994 Kansas law, a sperm donor isn’t considered the father only when a donor provides sperm to a licensed physician for artificial insemination of a woman who isn’t the donor’s wife. The result is an incentive for donors and prospective mothers to work with a doctor, de Rocha said.

The general rule is strict liability for sperm.

[polak]

To clarify, isn't this the state going after the "dad" and not the couple?

[Nehkara]

I feel terrible for the guy but it looks like he will lose if the article is accurate.

[photon]

Originally Posted by troutman

The result is an incentive for donors and prospective mothers to work with a doctor, de Rocha said.[/I]

If that's the intent of the requirement that's stupid, the "punishment" does not fit the crime.

If they didn't involve a doctor, then the punishment should be paying to have a doctor involved now to re-form the agreement, not nullify the agreement for eternity.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...418_story.html





It seems this is driven by the state, odd.

What seems odd to me is this dude sees an ad in Craigslist and decides

'yes, I think its a good idea to help randomly impregnate a total stranger'

I mean I can see doing it by mistake after a random drunken shag (came close in my 20's), I can even kind of see doing it for cash through a clinic with all the, all be it, shaky legal protection that comes with it, but just answering an ad next to the yard sale section, with no due dilligance what so ever, thats odd/nuts.

[troutman]

Probably difficult for many to accept in this case, but the interests of a child are paramount in court.

Who should bear the burden? The taxpayers, or the father?

Did they all receive independent legal advice when they signed the agreement?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by photon

If that's the intent of the requirement that's stupid, the "punishment" does not fit the crime.

If they didn't involve a doctor, then the punishment should be paying to have a doctor involved now to re-form the agreement, not nullify the agreement for eternity.

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!'

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by troutman

Who should bear the burden? The taxpayers, or the father?

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

[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.

[4X4]

I'm sure my opinion will be unpopular, but I kind of agree with the state on this one. On a spectrum ranging from artificial insemination by an anonymous donor at a clinic to "donating" by personally planting the seed, this falls right inbetween.
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.

I think you're crazy to just drop off a jar of jizz to a couple of people (lesbian or not) who want to have a baby.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I'm sure my opinion will be unpopular, but I kind of agree with the state on this one. On a spectrum ranging from artificial insemination by an anonymous donor at a clinic to "donating" by personally planting the seed, this falls right inbetween.
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.

I think you're crazy to just drop off a jar of jizz to a couple of people (lesbian or not) who want to have a baby.

All i can think of is this

Spoiler!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by troutman

Probably difficult for many to accept in this case, but the interests of a child are paramount in court.

Who should bear the burden? The taxpayers, or the father?

Did they all receive independent legal advice when they signed the agreement?

False dichotomy.

As with any other case, the two acknowledged parents bear the burden. That would be the child's momma and other momma.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by troutman

Probably difficult for many to accept in this case, but the interests of a child are paramount in court.

Who should bear the burden? The taxpayers, or the father?

Did they all receive independent legal advice when they signed the agreement?

It looks like the government is working in the interests of the child while seeking to limit financial liability to taxpayers. In other words, doing its job.

Too bad for the donor.

Cowperson

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

False dichotomy.

As with any other case, the two acknowledged parents bear the burden. That would be the child's momma and other momma.

Perhaps morally that's true, but legally if you decide to donate sperm via a back alley insemination (is that the name of a hardcore punk band? It should be) you're on the hook.

[Hemi-Cuda]

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.

she has no biological connection to the child and there is no way to prove that she had anything to do with the conception. she could just say she never wanted a child and that's why she left

[Daradon]

The lesson here: Always consult a lawyer and a doctor before gifting someone your man seed.

That's going to fill up the bedroom.