"Dad" forced to pay child support.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by gargamel

It depends on how the decision is worded, but there's no reason that the court can't make a very fact-specific ruling here.

As troutman posted earlier, sperm is strict liability, so the facts really don't matter. Donate sperm via turkey baster and you retain paternity.

[photon]

Originally Posted by valo403

There is one way to donate sperm and avoid paternity, by going through a doctor. Crafting a contract, regardless of what it says, cannot change this. If you father a child through your pea brained scheme to become an amateur sperm donor you face the potential of being treated as any other father. They explicitly attempted to circumvent the law via contract. You simply can't do that.

Ignoring the irrelevant negative characterizations, I didn't say crafting the contract changed the law or that the requirement to have a clinic or doctor involved isn't reasonable, I'm saying that I think the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by photon

Ignoring the irrelevant negative characterizations, I didn't say crafting the contract changed the law or that the requirement to have a clinic or doctor involved isn't reasonable, I'm saying that I think the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

And what I'm saying, and pretty much every jurisdiction I know of agrees, is that the best interests of the child come first, so if there is someone there with established paternity they should be required to pay for their child.

And the negative characterizations are completely relevant. This isn't adopting a pet, this is bringing a child into the world. The stakes are high, and homemade contracts shouldn't have any bearing in that situation. If you're dumb enough to engage in something like this you have to face the consequences.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by photon

I'm saying that I think the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

His rights are secondary. The state does not view it as punishment, but as an obligation.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by valo403

As troutman posted earlier, sperm is strict liability, so the facts really don't matter. Donate sperm via turkey baster and you retain paternity.

You're right that the donor must legally be recognized as the father under Kansas law, but does paternity automatically mean financial liability? Logically, it should not in a case like this where the child has two mothers, but I'm not sure how Kansas laws are written regarding child support and/or same sex couples as parents.

[photon]

Originally Posted by troutman

His rights are secondary. The state does not view it as punishment, but as an obligation.

An obligation that would have been absolved if they'd involved a clinic, if the law so easily absolves the obligation then shouldn't have the consequences of not following procedure be so disproportionate.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by gargamel

You're right that the donor must legally be recognized as the father under Kansas law, but does paternity automatically mean financial liability? Logically, it should not in a case like this where the child has two mothers, but I'm not sure how Kansas laws are written regarding child support and/or same sex couples as parents.

I don't know Kansas law, but I would assume that paternity means financial liability if needed and requested. The degree of support ordered should consider the ability of the current 'parents' (be they biological or not) to care for the child, but courts often skip around that issue from what I've seen.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by photon

An obligation that would have been absolved if they'd involved a clinic, if the law so easily absolves the obligation then shouldn't have the consequences of not following procedure be so disproportionate.

I don't think that requiring a medical procedure to be done by medical professionals is an easy absolvement at all, and I'd argue that it serves an important public health interest.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by troutman

His rights are secondary. The state does not view it as punishment, but as an obligation.

Would this have been the same if the couple had been man/woman instead of woman/woman?

[photon]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't think that requiring a medical procedure to be done by medical professionals is an easy absolvement at all, and I'd argue that it serves an important public health interest.

I didn't say it doesn't serve as an important public health interest, and if harm was done by not going to a clinic then that'd be a separate issue (mother is left sterile, baby is harmed, donor's organ got lost in the process), but going to the clinic rather than signing an agreement someone probably found on the Internet is pretty easy.. just go to the clinic.

The law recognizes intent in other situations, I think it should here to, not to absolve any responsibility, but to have some sense of proportion.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by photon

I didn't say it doesn't serve as an important public health interest, and if harm was done by not going to a clinic then that'd be a separate issue (mother is left sterile, baby is harmed, donor's organ got lost in the process), but going to the clinic rather than signing an agreement someone probably found on the Internet is pretty easy.. just go to the clinic.

The law recognizes intent in other situations, I think it should here to, not to absolve any responsibility, but to have some sense of proportion.

So there are only consequences if something goes wrong? Well that doesn't really serve the public health interest at all, people generally think they are capable of much more than they are. Just because they happen to pull it off doesn't mean they shouldn't be held responsible, that quite obviously doesn't discourage activities contrary to public health.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Would this have been the same if the couple had been man/woman instead of woman/woman?

I don't see any reason why not

[troutman]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Would this have been the same if the couple had been man/woman instead of woman/woman?

I would think so, but I can't speak about the law in Kansas.

[mykalberta]

I ask because in the article its the birth mother with the health issues, not the female partner (non birth mother)

If the couple was a man/woman would not the non-bio father be then financially responsible? Or would the male(non-bio father) also not be responsible because it wasnt a legit sperm donation?

Could not the sperm donor fight this in court if the couple pressured him to not go through a clinic (likely less expensive for the couple) and yet are now trying to offload the costs onto him?

I guess I am wondering why the state wouldnt go through the other non-bio parent in this situation for the money.

[photon]

Originally Posted by valo403

So there are only consequences if something goes wrong? Well that doesn't really serve the public health interest at all, people generally think they are capable of much more than they are. Just because they happen to pull it off doesn't mean they shouldn't be held responsible, that quite obviously doesn't discourage activities contrary to public health.

Well I don't really know or have given much thought to what the legal consequences of sticking a turkey baster in my vagina without the supervision of a doctor is or should be (dildo manufacturers probably know).. education and ease of access are probably more effective than having a big legal punishment for inappropriate turkey baster usage.

That's not really relevant to the issue of paternity and financial obligation though, my point was that the medical stuff a separate issue.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by photon

Well I don't really know or have given much thought to what the legal consequences of sticking a turkey baster in my vagina without the supervision of a doctor is or should be (dildo manufacturers probably know).. education and ease of access are probably more effective than having a big legal punishment for inappropriate turkey baster usage.

That's not really relevant to the issue of paternity and financial obligation though, my point was that the medical stuff a separate issue.

My point is that this legislation both the public health by requiring people who want to engage in artificial insemination to do so via proper medical channels while at the same time holding those who choose not to responsible. Allowing people to craft there only laws in this area through contract accomplishes neither of those goals.

And it's completely relevant to paternity, which is in turn relevant to the financial obligation. If you want to avoid paternity simply follow the proper procedures, don't go off on some goof ball adventure in insemination.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't see any reason why not

So the surrogate dad could/couldn't walk into the sunset leaving all $ responsibility to the sperm donor?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So the surrogate dad could/couldn't walk into the sunset leaving all $ responsibility to the sperm donor?

Like so many legal issues, it depends. Troutman talked earlier about the idea of step parents being made financially responsible in certain situations. I don't have much experience in the area, but one thing I"ve seen is that there are not a lot of clear cut things here.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

Like so many legal issues, it depends. Troutman talked earlier about the idea of step parents being made financially responsible in certain situations. I don't have much experience in the area, but one thing I"ve seen is that there are not a lot of clear cut things here.

If the only change we make in this situation is subsitution of a male for female in the partnership, it would appear the male in the relationship is free and clear.

He is not bound by sperm to the child.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by photon

We're assuming they didn't involve a lawyer, which seems to be the case, and definitely agreed, dumb move on their part. But the punishment should fit the crime.

I don't disagree that the punishment seems a little unfair, but I can't get really upset about it because as I said, important decisions like that you wanna think through and do right. There is no crime in being stupid, but it can be expensive!