« previous   misc   next »

Child support claim rankles sperm donor to lesbian couple


By bgamall4   Follow   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 12:53am PST   2,791 views   50 comments   Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

http://news.yahoo.com/child-support-claim-rankles-sperm-donor-lesbian-couple-014725388.html

William Marotta, 46, donated sperm to Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauer under a written agreement that he would not be considered the father of the child nor liable for child support. A daughter, now 3, was born to Schreiner. But in October, the state of Kansas filed a petition seeking to have Marotta declared the father of the child and financially responsible for her after the couple encountered money difficulties. Marotta will ask the court in a hearing January 8 to dismiss the claim, which centers on a state law that the sperm must be donated through a licensed physician...

« First     « Previous     Comments 11-50 of 50     Last »

thunderlips11   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 4:04am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 11

The State doesn't care who pays, as long as somebody pays. I'm glad the Lesbian Org is standing up for the guy, though.

The Family Court system is dominated by misandrists, however:

They cite a 2007 case in which the Kansas Supreme Court ruled against a sperm donor seeking parental rights because he did not have any such agreement with the mother, lawyers for Marotta said.


(from above article).

Unfortunately, Family Law is all to happy in most states making obligations unlimited but privileges subject to the whims of the State.

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 4:30am PST   Share   Quote   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 12

HeadSet says

Dan8267 says

The state has no right to interfere with this arrangement.

Wrong. You cannot write a contract that violates state law and expect it to be enforced. Especially when asking for welfare.

If a state law is unjust, it should not be respected by a jury. Would you imprison someone for helping a runaway slave in 1850?

Just because a state passes a law that is unjust, that act does not mean the state has the right to act on it. A state could pass a law requiring all babies to have their left hand removed, but the state has no right to remove the hands of babies regardless of what words they put on a piece of paper.

You need to distinguish between rights and laws and realize that rights are more important.

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 4:31am PST   Share   Quote   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 13

thunderlips11 says

The Family Court system is dominated by misandrists, however:

Which is exactly why most men don't marry anymore. It has nothing to do with gay marriage being recognized and everything to do with demonizing men in the court system.

You want to know what has caused the decline of marriage in recent decades? It's the family court system.

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 4:33am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 14

leo707 says

I don't know much about cloning, but I imagine that it takes quite a few more people to create a clone than two

For now. But it is the nature of technology to become more reliable, cheaper, and more available. Eventually, you'll be able to buy a Cuisinart Cloner in Walmart for the same price as a toaster.

HeadSet   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 6:09am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (3)     Comment 15

Dan8267 says

If a state law is unjust

The Kansas law is hardly unjust, despite your absurd comparisons to slavery or chopped off baby hands.

The law simply says that when a women is applying for welfare benefits, the biological father will be looked toward to support the child he helped produce. An express exception is given (just like in about 10 other states) for approved sperm donation procedures. If you allow ambiguity then the law becomes useless, since a precedent like "I had a contract, so welfare should not go after the bio father" will give plausable exemptions to nearly any situation where a pregnancy occurs, from the "freinds with benefits" to the "sniff it and hit it."

It is not unjust to require a man who brings a child into the world to provide support.

HeadSet   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 6:16am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 16

turtledove says

This child does have two parents... They just both happen to be female

Interesting. Since you consider lesbian couple to be parents, do you think the state should go after the "ex" for child support before granting welfare? As I understand it, the mother applied for welfare because the supporting lesbian partner left.

It would seem that lesbian advocates would support going after the ex, as it would put them on par with a hetero couple.

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 6:35am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 17

HeadSet says

The Kansas law is hardly unjust, despite your absurd comparisons to slavery or chopped off baby hands.

You missed the point. I wasn't comparing the Kansas law to slavery or chopped off baby hands. I was giving a counter-example to disprove your presumption that merely writing a law embodies the state with an inalienable right. Rights, not laws, are the a priori entity.

121212   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 6:36am PST   Share   Quote   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 18

HeadSet says

What choice did Kansas have, except to go after the biological father?

Regardless of the contract the parties have and the situation!

This man has zero financial responsibility for this child, ZERO!

121212   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 6:37am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 19

HeadSet says

Since you consider lesbian couple to be parents,

It has nothing to do with the sex of the parents, the SPERM DONOR is not financially responsible!

bgamall4   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 6:37am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 20

121212 says

This man has zero financial responsibility for this child, ZERO!

Apparently not. That is, apparently he does have responsibility. We will see won't we.

bgamall4   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 6:38am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 21

Man there must be a lot of sperm givers in this thread.

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 6:39am PST   Share   Quote   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 22

HeadSet says

The law simply says that when a women is applying for welfare benefits, the biological father will be looked toward to support the child he helped produce.

This is exactly why the law is unjust. It assumes that one man and one woman choose to have a child together, as oppose to two women choosing to have a child together. The dumb ass writers of the law didn't consider all the edge cases and wrote a buggy law.

Here's another example. Bertha rapes Cathy with a giant dildo. But the law defines rape as "a man penetrating a woman against her will" rather than as "one person penetrating another against the other's will". That poor writing would, in effect, make it impossible to convict same-sex rapists.

When laws are bad, they should be proactively changed. If the state stupidly attempts to enforce a law that is bad, the state should be punished.

121212   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 6:40am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 23

bgamall4 says

121212 says

This man has zero financial responsibility for this child, ZERO!

Apparently not. That is, apparently he does have responsibility. We will see won't we.

This is a crazy nuts story, Kansas will not be allowed to set a precedent like this. CRAZY! Sperm Donors are not responsible for child support, what the fuck are they thinking.

121212   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 6:42am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 24

HeadSet says

It is not unjust to require a man who brings a child into the world to provide support.

Your very foolish. This man was a surrogate SPERM DONOR!!!

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 6:48am PST   Share   Quote   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 25

HeadSet says

It is not unjust to require a man who brings a child into the world to provide support.

Of course it is unjust to require a sperm donor to provide financial support for a child when the donor and the legal parent or parents explicitly accepted the donation based on agreement that the sperm donor would not play a role in the child's upbringing. It is unjust because there is no consent!

Consider the following scenario. Bob uses a condom while having sex with Emily. Neither intends to be a parent. After sex, Bob throws the condom out. Melissa, Emily's flatmate, takes the condom out of the trash and uses the sperm to impregnate herself. By your reasoning, Bob would be morally and ethically obligated to provide Melissa with child support payments and the state should force these payments on Bob. That's retarded.

1. Consent to have sex does not equal consent to reproduce for either sex.
2. Consent to donate a sperm or an egg (which also happens all the time) does not equal consent to raising a child.
3. The genetic lineage of the child should not matter. The law should only be concern about who agreed (consented) to being the rightful parents of the child.

Hell, if DNA is all that matters, why not make a twin brother pay child support for his brother's biological child?

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 6:50am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 26

HeadSet says

turtledove says

This child does have two parents... They just both happen to be female

Interesting. Since you consider lesbian couple to be parents, do you think the state should go after the "ex" for child support before granting welfare?

This would actually be mostly justifiable as the "ex" did consent and accept parenthood of the child. The child was created for the benefit of the mother and her ex-partner.

And unlike going after the father, going after the ex wouldn't be sexist or a violation of the 14th Amendment.

thunderlips11   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 6:51am PST   Share   Quote   Like (4)   Dislike     Comment 27

HeadSet says

It is not unjust to require a man who brings a child into the world to provide support.

I'm sorry, this is misandry. The man is absolutely right: "No good deed goes unpunished." He donated his sperm so that a lesbian couple could obtain their dream of having a child without going through expensive sperm banks or adoption processes. I note nowhere in the article the couple is challenging him; just the state.

Is the opposite the law? If a woman willingly gives up her child for adoption, or donates her eggs to bear a child for a gay male couple, can the adoptive parents or the state then turn around years later and insist on child support from that mother or the egg donor? Of course not. If the state tried to do so, there would be outrage and it wouldn't survive one second in the court system.

121212   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 6:52am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 28

The one flaw in this case was the collection of sperm was not done correctly or by the correct individual. The legal paper work may have become invalid due to the collection method!

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 6:52am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 29

121212 says

It has nothing to do with the sex of the parents, the SPERM DONOR is not financially responsible!

True. In the eyes of the law, sperm donation must not be any different than egg donation. Otherwise, it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 6:53am PST   Share   Quote   Like (4)   Dislike     Comment 30

bgamall4 says

Man there must be a lot of sperm givers in this thread.

One does not have to be a victim of an injustice to be appalled by it. One must simply value the rights of others as much as his own, or at least realize that in order to protect your own rights, you must protect everyone else's.

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 6:55am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 31

thunderlips11 says

I'm sorry, this is misandry. The man is absolutely right: "No good deed goes unpunished." He donated his sperm so that a lesbian couple could obtain their dream of having a child without going through expensive sperm banks or adoption processes. I note nowhere in the article the couple is challenging him; just the state.

Exactly.

thunderlips11 says

Is the opposite the law? If a woman willingly gives up her child for adoption, or donates her eggs to bear a child for a gay male couple, can the adoptive parents or the state then turn around years later and insist on child support from that mother or the egg donor? Of course not. If the state tried to do so, there would be outrage and it wouldn't survive one second in the court system.

Completely true. No state attorney or bureaucrat would even dare making the same case against an egg donator. Hence the obvious sexism.

You either believe in equality under law or you don't.

bgamall4   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 7:22am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 32

Dan8267 says

One does not have to be a victim of an injustice to be appalled by it.

It isn't injustice number 1 on my list. It likely is not my injustice number 100 either. Sorry. :))

Quigley   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 8:40am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 33

Am I the only person who thinks of this contract (two lesbians with the man) as unfair to the child? They, all three of them, conspired to conceive a child who would be arbitrarily deprived of its father. They made the decision, eyes wide open, to commit this wrong against that little girl, and are further perpetrating it by having the father be so entirely distant and uninvolved with what is, after all, his daughter!
I think a child needs a father to have the best chance at life. A father may not give suck or provide a womb, but a father can be protector, provider, counselor, teacher, and friend to their child, if he is so inclined. Guys who don't want to be fathers should flush their jars of sperm rather than allow them to be used to create a child who is preordained to be abandoned by her father.

Mark D   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 9:16am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 34

every Tom Leykis student knows that a guy never sells his sperm. period.

always wear condoms and flush them down the toilet yourself. no exceptions.

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 9:37am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 35

bgamall4 says

Dan8267 says

One does not have to be a victim of an injustice to be appalled by it.

It isn't injustice number 1 on my list. It likely is not my injustice number 100 either. Sorry. :))

Irrelevant. Why tolerate even minor injustices in our legal system?

Furthermore, your lack of empathy for other men does not make their rights any less important. Would you be so callous if the biological parent in question was a woman who donated her egg so that another couple could have a child?

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 9:45am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 36

Quigley says

I think a child needs a father to have the best chance at life. A father may not give suck or provide a womb, but a father can be protector, provider, counselor, teacher, and friend to their child, if he is so inclined.

In the not-so-distant future, both men and women will be able to have biological children without a member of the opposite sex. For example, a woman donates an egg or a stem cell is converted into an egg in a lab. The DNA is removed from the egg and the DNA of both mothers (or both fathers) is added to the egg. Then the egg is implanted into one of the mothers, a surrogate mother, or an artificial womb.

In this inevitable scenario, the child will have either two biological mothers and zero biological fathers or two biological fathers and no biological mothers.

And the state should have no right to prohibit this.

Now one might argue that having a parent of each gender is advantageous, but having rich parents is even more adventurous, but that doesn't mean people of ordinary means should not have children. Similarly, even with the advantages of having bi-gender parental guidance, mono-gender parents should not be relegated to second class citizens. Plus, any such disadvantage is mitigated by having a close aunt or uncle.

HeadSet   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 12:40pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 37

thunderlips11 says

I'm sorry, this is misandry.

No, that is responsibility.

It seems our viewpoint differs in how we see children. The gist of so many on this thread seems to be that children are no different than toys or dolls, in that children are acquired soley for the enjoyment of adults. Whether created by one night stand, Craig's List search for a donater to bypass "expensive" regulations, or even tots-in-pots imagineering, no thought need to given for the child's well being. And if the child you produced needs support, abandon it to the state, just like the "sperm doner" and the "ex" did.

Dan8267   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 1:37pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 38

HeadSet says

The gist of so many on this thread seems to be that children are no different than toys or dolls, in that children are acquired soley for the enjoyment of adults.

That is not at all what anyone is saying. Nor did the donator abandon the child, the "ex" did. You cannot abandon what is not yours.

Ceffer   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 5:01pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 39

What about the roving bands of lesbian thugs who kidnap men and force them to give up their precious seed? Do those men have to support the children too?

Do sperm banks pay sperm interest?