Shameful Lesbians Forcing Sperm Donor to Pay Child Support

[JayHawk]

The land of crazy Kansans ... just a couple of articles from the KC Star this morning.

Kansas militia expects zombies, and it’s dead serious

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/03/3993965/kansas-militia-expects-zombies.html#storylink=cpy

Kansas daredevil dies in leap from 393-foot tower (funeral is today)

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/04/3995120/kansas-daredevil-dies-in-leap.html#storylink=cpy

While I normally simply poke at your hate of Kansas because I am hanging my hat here and it is fun, I have to admit you are dead on with your crazy talk.... 'cept I would have to amend it to crazy red staters.... from my experience in a variety of red states I would definitely say that is more accurate.

 

[sixthson]

Wrong, backwards, and wrong.

There is no indication that "then the women expected taxpayers to foot the bill for the baby". From the half dozen articles I've read on this so far, it's pretty plain that they expected to do it themselves, but then the economy went sour on them. The state stepped in in spite of the contract, which they shouldn't do. And there's no indication that "the three of them expect the state to pay for it" (see above).

I have only read the article as it is presented in this thread, but as I understand it, the women could not afford to go through legal channels to conceive a child so they went through Craig's List. If they could not afford that, how did they expect to afford the price of devlivery 9 months later? The cost of having a baby and raising a child should be part of family planning.

You say the state should not have stepped in because of the contract between the 3 people, but the state was brought in by the women when they could not afford to pay for the child's birth. Who is paying for the support of the child now?

 

[JB3]

I have only read the article as it is presented in this thread, but as I understand it, the women could not afford to go through legal channels to conceive a child so they went through Craig's List. If they could not afford that, how did they expect to afford the price of devlivery 9 months later? The cost of having a baby and raising a child should be part of family planning.

You say the state should not have stepped in because of the contract between the 3 people, but the state was brought in by the women when they could not afford to pay for the child's birth. Who is paying for the support of the child now?

A lot of insurance doesn't cover Invitro Fertilization, which is what they would have had to use. Those procedures can cost well over $30k per implantation. Their insurance would have covered childbirth, however.

 

[quasar]

Claiming after the fact that he should have researched it is easy...

This is the problem isn't it. Whilst the exact same Sperm Donor contract would be legally binding if the means of acquiring the sperm was through an authorised avenue; because is was acquired via a non-authorised avenue, the contract isn't legally binding. Crazy.

It is perhaps also worth pointing out at this stage in the discussion - because it appears to have been overlooked - that the couple are no longer together. Schreiner has custody of the child which is why, as a single parent, she went to the State for welfare assistance. My guess is that in innocently being truthful about her circumstances when making her claim, she inadvertently opened this can of worms. Regardless of the pressure put on her, I just don't understand why she gave Marotta's name, and I don't understand why, given the economic climate they would choose to have a child now. But that's by the by.

That said, taking it a stage further, if the State was to accept an unauthorised sperm donor contract, what's to stop hundreds of mothers (living with their partners) handing in these kind of contracts and claiming that their offspring was donated by anonymous sperm?

"Hey honey, let's have a kid."
"We can't afford one."
"Yes we can. We can tell them that it was donated sperm. That way, you don't have to pay towards the child, the State will."

It's just one of those unfortunate things, but it'll be interesting to see how the court case goes.

 

[Jack Springer]

^^^

Shouldn't the state of Kansas also sue her former partner for child support?

Equal rights come with responsibilities.

 

[JayHawk]

^^^

Shouldn't the state of Kansas also sue her former partner for child support?

Equal rights come with responsibilities.

The state of Kansas does not recognize those rights. If they desire to hold the same sex couple accountable to the requirements that are associated then they have to first recognize the right.

That said this is an excellent lesson. Us homos will be opened up to thing like child support and alimony. Ya know what? I am good with assuming that responsible adult situation so that my love life can be legally protected like any other. But that is just me.

 

[dat outside dick]

"Whilst the exact same Sperm Donor contract would be legally binding if the means of acquiring the sperm was through an authorised avenue; because is was acquired via a non-authorised avenue, the contract isn't legally binding. Crazy."

Not crazy at all. Kansas could see that in any case where a doctor told a woman that having a child would be risky, owing to, let's say, the woman's advanced age, or any one of a myriad of medical conditions, that the woman would go to the "black market" of Craigslist. They would be on the hook for what would inevitably be enormous medical bills for infants born to these at-risk mothers. If a woman chooses to go against the advice of her doctor, she is assuming the risk. It should not be passed on to the state.

Also, once the mother sought state aid, it was incumbent upon Kansas to obtain the name of the parent. The mother did not "give him up" to the authorities.

Good article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/william-marotta_n_2395412.html

What's crazy is spelling "authorized" with an "s"!!!

 

[Benvolio]

In most, or all, all states, the biological father is liable for the support of the child. The right is for the protection of the child and therefore, the mother cannot contract it away. The contract of the mother and/or ex partner could form the basis for an indemnification suit by the father to recover back what he pays from them, but of course the mother has no money. I do not know what the ex has. The old legal maxim is, you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

 

[palemale]

It seems to me that Kansas needs to amend this law. The state could assert some interest in wanting some regulation of sperm donation. For example, the state may want a record of parenthood for future medical needs of the child or to prevent the spread of STIs. However, what if the women wanted a relative or friend to be a sperm donor? Why should there be any less protection for the donor or couple in that circumstance? The state could achieve its interest in maintaining records or public health without requiring all sperm donation go through a sperm bank.

 

[TX-Beau]

See, thing is, there IS legal protection for the donor - when handled within the bounds of the law - ALL they had to do was consult a lawyer, and there would be no case.

But no, they didn't, they didn't think it through, they didn't bother to ask. The state is in no way being unreasonable, and while yes I think that the guy is getting shafted, well, he didn't act to protect himself either.

The state perhaps might not have gone after the guy if they recognized the relationship between the two women and went after the other lesbian instead.

So, does anyone know if the other lesbian offered to pay the child support? Or did she just skip out and avoid responsibility for a child she helped bring into the world?

None of the principals in this come across as particularly responsible adults.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Yeah I see this whole thing (while not defending the Kansas law per se) as akin to doing something like seeking a life insurance policy through craig's list, or adopting a kid via Craig's list without the proper legal channels/documentation.

It's going to blow up.