Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
However, marriage alone is NOT enough to lead to child support. Not if the biological parent still holds parental responsibility
Not necessarly true. There are many cases of step-parents who have been required to pay child support for a step-child after marrying the biological parent and even if the other biological parent still had some legal parental responsibility due to the assumpton of loco parentis.
And THAT is the issue here, As far as the state is concerned the paper the father signed giving away his rights is invalid and ergo he is still the father with all such rights and obligations. Those obligations would be child support, those rights would be visitation should he now decide he wants visitation , no matter that he signed a paper with the mom stating that he would not ask for visitation.
Actually the Kansas Supreme Court in 2007 ruled against a sperm donor who sought visitation rights to a child he fathered trough donation. So a person (in Kansas) can give up their parental rights and not be responsible for the child. (LINK)
The Kansas law provides such protections if the donation is implanted by a licensed physician. However the state noticed that in this case that technicality had not been met is is trying to make the donor responsible for child support.
As I just mentioned a few posts ago, there would be no difference if this case goes through to prevent going after women who gave up their child as to adoption and then years later the state being able to go back after them for child support.
>>>>
There are different rules entirely if you go through a sperm bank or an adoption agency.
Which would cover both of your scenarios.
From the news articles where it has referred to the couple adopting the child, the links are mostly in the thread, if you have something showing that Bauer did not adopt the child(ren) as stated in the news articles - feel free to provide corroboration.
The issue isn't that the state didn't consider Bauer an adoptive parent, the state did not recognize them as Civilly Married (a completely different issue). The issue was that before the state would allow them to receive state assistance they insisted on the name of the sperm donor.
"The couple adopted eight children together during their relationship but have not been given the same rights as straight couples" (LINK)
"Bauer, 40, and Schreiner, 34, had been together for eight years and previously adopted other children when Marotta responded to their ad and later provided sperm used to artificially inseminate Schreiner, who could not be reached for comment Monday." (LINK)
"By 2009, when lesbian couple Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner decided they wanted to give birth to a child, the two had been together eight years and already had fostered and adopted several children together." (LINK)
"But in 2010, the couple, who continue to co-parent eight adopted children ranging in age from 3 months to 25 years, parted ways, raising the issue of who would pay child support for the little girl, according to the Capital-Journal. Then, earlier this year, Bauer, who had been supporting Schreiner and the children, became unable to provide health benefits for the three-year-old, due to a significant illness that prevented her from working, and the couple applied for state services which prompted the Kansas Department for Children and Families to request the name of the childs father." (LINK)
Very different though if they had an adoption.
>>>>
nowhere in there have I read that the other mother adopted THIS little girl as her own.
I fully admit that I may have just missed it.
However, marriage alone is NOT enough to lead to child support. Not if the biological parent still holds parental responsibility
And THAT is the issue here, As far as the state is concerned the paper the father signed giving away his rights is invalid and ergo he is still the father with all such rights and obligations. Those obligations would be child support, those rights would be visitation should he now decide he wants visitation , no matter that he signed a paper with the mom stating that he would not ask for visitation.
I specifically responded to you with the story about the adoption and the link. The state has not contended the adoption is invalid, they contend that the father is still responsible because the couple did not use a doctor for the insemination. It appears that the state is simply pretending the adoption did not happen.
From the news articles where it has referred to the couple adopting the child, the links are mostly in the thread, if you have something showing that Bauer did not adopt the child(ren) as stated in the news articles - feel free to provide corroboration.
The issue isn't that the state didn't consider Bauer an adoptive parent, the state did not recognize them as Civilly Married (a completely different issue). The issue was that before the state would allow them to receive state assistance they insisted on the name of the sperm donor.
"The couple adopted eight children together during their relationship but have not been given the same rights as straight couples" (LINK)
"Bauer, 40, and Schreiner, 34, had been together for eight years and previously adopted other children when Marotta responded to their ad and later provided sperm used to artificially inseminate Schreiner, who could not be reached for comment Monday." (LINK)
"By 2009, when lesbian couple Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner decided they wanted to give birth to a child, the two had been together eight years and already had fostered and adopted several children together." (LINK)
"But in 2010, the couple, who continue to co-parent eight adopted children ranging in age from 3 months to 25 years, parted ways, raising the issue of who would pay child support for the little girl, according to the Capital-Journal. Then, earlier this year, Bauer, who had been supporting Schreiner and the children, became unable to provide health benefits for the three-year-old, due to a significant illness that prevented her from working, and the couple applied for state services which prompted the Kansas Department for Children and Families to request the name of the childs father." (LINK)
Very different though if they had an adoption.
>>>>
nowhere in there have I read that the other mother adopted THIS little girl as her own.
I fully admit that I may have just missed it.
However, marriage alone is NOT enough to lead to child support. Not if the biological parent still holds parental responsibility
And THAT is the issue here, As far as the state is concerned the paper the father signed giving away his rights is invalid and ergo he is still the father with all such rights and obligations. Those obligations would be child support, those rights would be visitation should he now decide he wants visitation , no matter that he signed a paper with the mom stating that he would not ask for visitation.
I specifically responded to you with the story about the adoption and the link. The state has not contended the adoption is invalid, they contend that the father is still responsible because the couple did not use a doctor for the insemination. It appears that the state is simply pretending the adoption did not happen.
exactly right , IF the other mother (I guess that's the term for her?) had legally adopted the kid, it is SHE who would be paying child support not the father.
You keep saying that without offering any evidence that the adoption was not legal. The strange thing is that, since Kansas refuses to legally acknowledge same sex relationships exist, you are basing your entire argument that the adoption is illegal on the fact that Kansas prefers to pretend lesbians do not exist.
actually no I Have insisted and do insist that lesbian had NOTHING to do with the actions Kansas took or is taking.
The entire issue is that according to law in the state of Kansas that agreement the dad signed with the mom is invalid and therefor he is STILL the father and still must pay child support, this would be as true if he had donated sperm to a man and a woman as it is when he donated sperm to a woman and a woman.
However, marriage alone is NOT enough to lead to child support. Not if the biological parent still holds parental responsibility
Not necessarly true. There are many cases of step-parents who have been required to pay child support for a step-child after marrying the biological parent and even if the other biological parent still had some legal parental responsibility due to the assumpton of loco parentis.
And THAT is the issue here, As far as the state is concerned the paper the father signed giving away his rights is invalid and ergo he is still the father with all such rights and obligations. Those obligations would be child support, those rights would be visitation should he now decide he wants visitation , no matter that he signed a paper with the mom stating that he would not ask for visitation.
Actually the Kansas Supreme Court in 2007 ruled against a sperm donor who sought visitation rights to a child he fathered trough donation. So a person (in Kansas) can give up their parental rights and not be responsible for the child. (LINK)
The Kansas law provides such protections if the donation is implanted by a licensed physician. However the state noticed that in this case that technicality had not been met is is trying to make the donor responsible for child support.
As I just mentioned a few posts ago, there would be no difference if this case goes through to prevent going after women who gave up their child as to adoption and then years later the state being able to go back after them for child support.
>>>>
There are different rules entirely if you go through a sperm bank or an adoption agency.
Which would cover both of your scenarios.
nowhere in there have I read that the other mother adopted THIS little girl as her own.
I fully admit that I may have just missed it.
However, marriage alone is NOT enough to lead to child support. Not if the biological parent still holds parental responsibility
And THAT is the issue here, As far as the state is concerned the paper the father signed giving away his rights is invalid and ergo he is still the father with all such rights and obligations. Those obligations would be child support, those rights would be visitation should he now decide he wants visitation , no matter that he signed a paper with the mom stating that he would not ask for visitation.
I specifically responded to you with the story about the adoption and the link. The state has not contended the adoption is invalid, they contend that the father is still responsible because the couple did not use a doctor for the insemination. It appears that the state is simply pretending the adoption did not happen.
The state will move until forced to back off.
no she did NOT adopt the child as far as the state is concerned . Why don't you get that?
No different than if it were a man and a woman and they didn't get an official adoption.
Are you sure about that? If the biological mother had died would the state take the child and give it to the biological father, or would they have accepted the legally binding single parent adoption and let the other woman keep her?
Well my guess is that if the mother died and the sperm donor then challenged for custody he would win.
But of course with courts one never knows for sure.
And that is assuming the biological father even tried to get custody , which in this case I doubt.
So the answer to your question is no the state would not just come and take the child, the father would have to initiate action.
no she did NOT adopt the child as far as the state is concerned . Why don't you get that?
No different than if it were a man and a woman and they didn't get an official adoption.
Are you sure about that? If the biological mother had died would the state take the child and give it to the biological father, or would they have accepted the legally binding single parent adoption and let the other woman keep her?
Well my guess is that if the mother died and the sperm donor then challenged for custody he would win.
But of course with courts one never knows for sure.
And that is assuming the biological father even tried to get custody , which in this case I doubt.
So the answer to your question is no the state would not just come and take the child, the father would have to initiate action.
I specifically responded to you with the story about the adoption and the link. The state has not contended the adoption is invalid, they contend that the father is still responsible because the couple did not use a doctor for the insemination. It appears that the state is simply pretending the adoption did not happen.
The state will move until forced to back off.
No they won't. The state NEVER initiates child support collection unless the custodial parent requests it or welfare is involved.
They have too many cases backlogged to be out looking for new cases where the person isn't asking for help collecting, except of course when welfare is involved.
Not necessarly true. There are many cases of step-parents who have been required to pay child support for a step-child after marrying the biological parent and even if the other biological parent still had some legal parental responsibility due to the assumpton of loco parentis.
Actually the Kansas Supreme Court in 2007 ruled against a sperm donor who sought visitation rights to a child he fathered trough donation. So a person (in Kansas) can give up their parental rights and not be responsible for the child. (LINK)
The Kansas law provides such protections if the donation is implanted by a licensed physician. However the state noticed that in this case that technicality had not been met is is trying to make the donor responsible for child support.
As I just mentioned a few posts ago, there would be no difference if this case goes through to prevent going after women who gave up their child as to adoption and then years later the state being able to go back after them for child support.
>>>>
There are different rules entirely if you go through a sperm bank or an adoption agency.
Which would cover both of your scenarios.
Adoptions are legal in Kansas even if you do not use an agency. The fact that a legal adoption actually occurred negates any argument about how the child was conceived.
By the way, didn't you just argue that you are not arguing the adoption is not illegal?
There are different rules entirely if you go through a sperm bank or an adoption agency.
Which would cover both of your scenarios.
Adoptions are legal in Kansas even if you do not use an agency. The fact that a legal adoption actually occurred negates any argument about how the child was conceived.
By the way, didn't you just argue that you are not arguing the adoption is not illegal?
I don't care about the adoption. Because the invalid contract giving up parental rights invalidates the alleged abortion.
nowhere in there have I read that the other mother adopted THIS little girl as her own.
I fully admit that I may have just missed it.
However, marriage alone is NOT enough to lead to child support. Not if the biological parent still holds parental responsibility
And THAT is the issue here, As far as the state is concerned the paper the father signed giving away his rights is invalid and ergo he is still the father with all such rights and obligations. Those obligations would be child support, those rights would be visitation should he now decide he wants visitation , no matter that he signed a paper with the mom stating that he would not ask for visitation.
I specifically responded to you with the story about the adoption and the link. The state has not contended the adoption is invalid, they contend that the father is still responsible because the couple did not use a doctor for the insemination. It appears that the state is simply pretending the adoption did not happen.
dude for real. The state contends that the first contract is invalid and so the father in fact did NOt give up his parental rights and so the adoption couldn't have even have happened.
This is NOT the states fault and it has nothing to do with gay.
The state has the right to go after the fool because of the way the law is written. They didn't have a doctor supervise it.
There are different rules entirely if you go through a sperm bank or an adoption agency.
Which would cover both of your scenarios.
Adoptions are legal in Kansas even if you do not use an agency. The fact that a legal adoption actually occurred negates any argument about how the child was conceived.
By the way, didn't you just argue that you are not arguing the adoption is not illegal?
I don't care about the adoption. Because the invalid contract giving up parental rights invalidates the alleged abortion.
Yeah, I am surprised that their biological parents aren't being jumped on as well. Who them kids got stuck with are part of a group that stand for equality, right? Well its time for them to practice what they preach by not favoring one over the rest.No one seems to care about the other 8 children in this mess.
Yeah, I am surprised that their biological parents aren't being jumped on as well. Who them kids got stuck with are part of a group that stand for equality, right? Well its time for them to practice what they preach by not favoring one over the rest.No one seems to care about the other 8 children in this mess.
God bless you always!!!
Holly
The state has the right to go after the fool because of the way the law is written. They didn't have a doctor supervise it.
States do not have rights.
The state has the right to go after the fool because of the way the law is written. They didn't have a doctor supervise it.
States do not have rights.
Adoptions are legal in Kansas even if you do not use an agency. The fact that a legal adoption actually occurred negates any argument about how the child was conceived.
By the way, didn't you just argue that you are not arguing the adoption is not illegal?
I don't care about the adoption. Because the invalid contract giving up parental rights invalidates the alleged abortion.
The state is claiming the insemination, which occurred before the adoption, was illegitimate because they did not use a doctor. How, exactly, does that make the adoption,which had to occur after that point, illegal?
