BigSqwert Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 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. via Personally, I feel that this guy should get off, no pun intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 06:58 PM) 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. via Personally, I feel that this guy should get off, no pun intended. um... obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I don't see how anyone is going to support the plaintiffs here, but I might imagine that this is a gray area in the law in some states that could need to be cleaned up, particularly if he just answered an online ad of some sort in a way that isn't regulated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 The right to child support is with the child, the law was set up to protect the children. If you start allowing parents to waive the child's rights then some spouses could be bullied and intimidated into waiving those rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 06:20 PM) I don't see how anyone is going to support the plaintiffs here, but I might imagine that this is a gray area in the law in some states that could need to be cleaned up, particularly if he just answered an online ad of some sort in a way that isn't regulated. Could be, since the article said the case turns on the fact that the insemination wasn't performed by a doctor. I assume most inseminations that use a non-parent-donor's sperm do use doctors, so this doesn't affect most people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 There was an exception for anonymous donors through recognized medical channels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 So...does that mean the guy had sex with her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 So...does that mean the guy had sex with her? No, the article said that he dropped off containers and the women performed the insemination themselves. The guy is an idiot. First, for not knowing his liability under the law, and secondly, for agreeing to do it this way because if the women can't afford to use a doctor to do this then that's a sign they might at some point have trouble supporting the child financially, so it shouldn't be a surprise that it has reached this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 What a terrible situation for the child. First, the parents break up within a year, then on state aid, now looking for parental support from a parent that thought he had no paternal liability. Hell, if I was the Dad I would countersue for full custody. F*** her Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuna Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 07:26 AM) What a terrible situation for the child. First, the parents break up within a year, then on state aid, now looking for parental support from a parent that thought he had no paternal liability. Hell, if I was the Dad I would countersue for full custody. F*** her It's the state suing him, not the mother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 QUOTE (Tuna @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 07:40 AM) It's the state suing him, not the mother. Right, because they want to force him to pay child support so she doesnt need state aid. If the situation with her has become so bad that the state is trying to force me to pay for a child, then I just became a surprise dad and its time to invest in that relationship personally as well as financially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuna Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 07:56 AM) Right, because they want to force him to pay child support so she doesnt need state aid. If the situation with her has become so bad that the state is trying to force me to pay for a child, then I just became a surprise dad and its time to invest in that relationship personally as well as financially. Fair point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 08:56 AM) Right, because they want to force him to pay child support so she doesnt need state aid. If the situation with her has become so bad that the state is trying to force me to pay for a child, then I just became a surprise dad and its time to invest in that relationship personally as well as financially. And if he did this kind of donation 100 times? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 And if he did this kind of donation 100 times? He'd be very sore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 He knowingly fathered a child. The child that is walking around his half his DNA. Now his child that needs support. Some people think we should now pay to raise the child. Do taxpayers really have a higher moral or legal responsibility than the child's own father? I don't mind my tax dollars backing up parents when they are struggling, but I mind when my tax dollars are assumed to be the primary and we look for ways to excuse the actual parent from any responsibility. Between and innocent child and a perhaps naive and clueless adult, I'm siding with the innocent child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 08:44 AM) He knowingly fathered a child. The child that is walking around his half his DNA. Now his child that needs support. Some people think we should now pay to raise the child. Do taxpayers really have a higher moral or legal responsibility than the child's own father? I don't mind my tax dollars backing up parents when they are struggling, but I mind when my tax dollars are assumed to be the primary and we look for ways to excuse the actual parent from any responsibility. Between and innocent child and a perhaps naive and clueless adult, I'm siding with the innocent child. No he didn't. He knowingly allowed someone else to father a child. If you instituted a system which put sperm and egg donors on the hook for kids, you could cripple the cottage industry which allows people who are unable to conceive children on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 No he didn't. He knowingly allowed someone else to father a child. If you instituted a system which put sperm and egg donors on the hook for kids, you could cripple the cottage industry which allows people who are unable to conceive children on their own. The legal standard is that sperm donors who go through a doctor are not considered a legal parent, but those who do not are. And I understand that standard completely because outside of a doctor's supervision there really isn't proof as to how the sperm got there so to protect the children that's how it needs to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 08:13 AM) And if he did this kind of donation 100 times? He better hope that the other 99 women arent on the hook for welfare. And that his lawyer is good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 why couldn't the donor have a contract drawn up and notarized at the time of donation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 08:51 AM) No he didn't. He knowingly allowed someone else to father a child. If you instituted a system which put sperm and egg donors on the hook for kids, you could cripple the cottage industry which allows people who are unable to conceive children on their own. Did you miss where this did not happen with any medical oversight? I agree that for anonymous donations or ones that are conducted through established legal medical channels the sperm or egg donor should not be held responsible. This is different. When you recognize fertilization that occurs outside of established medical procedures then you force women to argue that there was sex involved to receive support. Any dead beat dad could say he just donated the sperm and that the woman later, without his consent, self fertilized. That is a dangerous precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 08:58 AM) why couldn't the donor have a contract drawn up and notarized at the time of donation? if state law doesnt recognize the donation outside of the normal medical channels, does it really matter if it is notarized? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 08:58 AM) why couldn't the donor have a contract drawn up and notarized at the time of donation? Generally because the right to support is the child's and the child isn't there to agree. The entire child support system is to assure the child has adequate support. It isn't "for" the parent. Of course there is an exception for donors that are done through recognized channels. Another situation I am aware of is a couple I know married after the husband had a vasectomy. At the time she didn't think she wanted kids. Later she did. He did not, but eventually agreed. They used a sperm donor. Later, since they were married when the child was conceived, he was responsible for child support, same as if the child was adopted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 So if Kansas allowed gay marriages this guy would have been off the hook? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 09:06 AM) if state law doesnt recognize the donation outside of the normal medical channels, does it really matter if it is notarized? I'm asking why the state law couldn't be changed to accommodate situations outside of doctors' offices. I don't know if there's a good medical reason to heavily favor artificial insemination by doctors or if its just rent-seeking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 09:01 AM) Did you miss where this did not happen with any medical oversight? I agree that for anonymous donations or ones that are conducted through established legal medical channels the sperm or egg donor should not be held responsible. This is different. When you recognize fertilization that occurs outside of established medical procedures then you force women to argue that there was sex involved to receive support. Any dead beat dad could say he just donated the sperm and that the woman later, without his consent, self fertilized. That is a dangerous precedent. I don't think the woman is contesting the facts of the situation, though. The state is saying, regardless of the facts, he must pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts