"Dad" forced to pay child support.

[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.

[troutman]

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.

If mom A and mom B have no money, should the child be raised in poverty? If not, should the state, or the father step up?

It sounds like Dad has some kind of limited relationship with the child.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/20.../20466731.html

Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said Wednesday “it is unfortunate and unfair” that Kansas is seeking money from a sperm donor.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

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

Both women and the donor signed the agreement relieving him of parental/financial responsibility, so it seems like there would be proof that she intended to be a mother to this child. I can only assume that the state of Kansas doesn't recognize that a child can have two mothers, but either way, it doesn't seem right to come after the donor in this specific case.

[Daradon]

Joking aside, if you are donating someone your sperm for the purposes of making babies, it would probably be good to talk to a lawyer first and make sure whatever agreement both parties come to, is valid and enforceable in court. If not, find out how to make it so. Which if I am reading it right, simply meant involving a doctor. It does make sense. A bit of a pain, but, it is a pretty serious situation. Sounds like the parties involved didn't really think it through. Which, when kids are involved, is always a good idea.

This scenario sucks (for the donor), but could have been avoided.

[photon]

If it's a value of a society that a child not be raised in poverty, then that society has to be responsible for providing the resources to make sure that value is adhered to.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by photon

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.



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.



Lol my first reply was going to be:





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.

Any one can make up or tear up a contract and claim anything, at the end of the day unless there is a third party involved (clinic, notary, lawyer) then the only proof here is he's the father.

Put it the other way, you get a girl pregnant and want to be part of your childs life, she then claims you were only the sperm donor and should have no part of the kids life.
On some level there has to be a baseline of conclusive proof, not he or she said, genetics are conclusive, as is a proper contract.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Sounds like the parties involved didn't really think it through. Which, when kids are involved, is always a good idea.

This scenario sucks (for the donor), but could have been avoided.

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.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Seems to me the sticking point would likely be the legality of the contract.

You can't enforce a contract for something that is illegal (go ahead and try to sue me for not actually killing your husband after you paid me to), so if the state law is that you can't legally donate sperm, and thus absolve parental responsibility, without a doctor then the contract wouldn't be valid.

'Course I'm not a fancy lawyering type, so there's probably more to it than that.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Any one can make up or tear up a contract and claim anything, at the end of the day unless there is a third party involved (clinic, notary, lawyer) then the only proof here is he's the father.

Put it the other way, you get a girl pregnant and want to be part of your childs life, she then claims you were only the sperm donor and should have no part of the kids life.
On some level there has to be a baseline of conclusive proof, not he or she said, genetics are conclusive, as is a proper contract.

Is anyone disputing the authenticity of the contract or the intent of the parties? Based on the article that was posted, it doesn't seem that they are.

[photon]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Any one can make up or tear up a contract and claim anything, at the end of the day unless there is a third party involved (clinic, notary, lawyer) then the only proof here is he's the father.

That's a good point, if it was a case of him saying "I've got this agreement" and the other two saying "We never signed that he made that up" then I'd agree, but that's not the case here, the 3 have operated under the terms of the agreement up until now which is also proof about the intent of the agreement.

In this case the actual agreement itself isn't under contention, it's the legality of the agreement and the consequences of that.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by photon

That's a good point, if it was a case of him saying "I've got this agreement" and the other two saying "We never signed that he made that up" then I'd agree, but that's not the case here, the 3 have operated under the terms of the agreement up until now which is also proof about the intent of the agreement.

In this case the actual agreement itself isn't under contention, it's the legality of the agreement and the consequences of that.

The problem is the court ruling will affect future cases whether both parties agree or not

[valo403]

Originally Posted by photon

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.

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.

The infraction is fathering a child, the consequences are paying for it. Seems fair.

You can't contract to avoid the law.

[KelVarnsen]

Buddy should have just jerked off into a sock.

[mykalberta]

I assume in Kansas the other parent isnt seen as legal else why would they not be going after that parent (the other woman).

[photon]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The problem is the court ruling will affect future cases whether both parties agree or not

There should be something between the extremes of "nothing" and "child support payments for the rest of your life".

Originally Posted by valo403

The infraction is fathering a child, the consequences are paying for it. Seems fair.

The infraction is donating sperm without going through a clinic or a doctor.

Originally Posted by valo403

You can't contract to avoid the law.

No, but the law recognizes the difference between a father and a sperm donor, if these guys had gone through a clinic then their contract would be fine, so the infraction is not going through a clinic or doctor, they didn't contract to decide to not recognize the legal requirement.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The problem is the court ruling will affect future cases whether both parties agree or not

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.

[mykalberta]

What is the difference in this case between a sperm donor and some guy who scored with a lesbian? Other than they did it the "natural way".

I assume not going through a clinic means they had intercourse. Can a guy have a hetro girl sign a contract saying he isnt responsible if a child is produced?

[photon]

What I really want to see happen is a heterosexual couple get a sperm donor, the woman flake out and take off, the father get child support, the state sue the sperm donor for child support, the sperm donor sue for joint custody, and Kansas have to create a family with two dads. For the lulz.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by photon

There should be something between the extremes of "nothing" and "child support payments for the rest of your life".

The infraction is donating sperm without going through a clinic or a doctor.

No, but the law recognizes the difference between a father and a sperm donor, if these guys had gone through a clinic then their contract would be fine, so the infraction is not going through a clinic or doctor, they didn't contract to decide to not recognize the legal requirement.

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.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by photon

If these guys had gone through a clinic then their contract would be fine, so the infraction is not going through a clinic or doctor, they didn't contract to decide to not recognize the legal requirement.

I presume even then, the court could still over-ride such a contract, if it is in the "best interests of the child". No legal right is superior to that.

Here, it sometimes happens that a step-father has to pay child support (in loco parentis), where biological dad is not providing support. Step-dad has a right to set-off what he is paying against what biological dad should/could be paying.