Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
A) The state has good reasons for encouraging that donors and the donation procedure are carried out by doctors, not homemade insemination clinics. The first, and most obvious, is the public health factor. I don't think there's any possible way to argue against that. The second, is the certainty it provides. As others have pointed out in this thread, a contrary standard opens the door to abuse via false claims. This standard make sit very clear who and who isn't eligible for paternity.
B) Ignorance of the law is no excuse, again this is something you know well. These people had the capacity to construct this contract, they also had the capacity to find out if it was legal.
C) No, he is not entitled. Paternity does not grant you a inalienable right to custody (I don't know Kansas law, but I don't know of anywhere where that is the case). He'd have the right to petition for it, and the court would have the right to look at the circumstances and make a decision.
|
A) Kansas believes it has good reasons other states do not. So to say the State has a good reason is questionable. The state has a law, yes, but that doesn't mean it is a good law. The fact that other states have allowed this type of arrangement to be legal at least throws the law into question.
B) We do not know if he had the capability to find out the laws regarding whether or not a doctor had to perform this procedure. And why would you check should a common law contract be sufficient. Isn't it reasonable (not smart) to think that an agreement on how a child can be raised and who it is raised by should be the decision of the people producing it and not the state? To me and at least 10 other states it is.
C) This is a huge double standard. That on one hand he would immediately become financially liable but wouldn't be guaranteed partial custody is ridiculous if it is his kid and his responsibility it is his kid. If not it isn't. The fact that in one case the court could use discretion and in the other case cannot use discretion is unfair.
The purpose of the law appears to be to avoid paternity disputes. In this case, the contract has ensured that there was a clear understanding of paternity, and there is no dispute. So in this case the goal of the law was accomplished. If there was a dispute over paternity in this case then throwing out the contract might make sense but with no one contesting it the state is just trying to offload its bills to a charitable person.
) 
