Sperm donor to lesbian couple ordered to pay child support

[Connery]

The man is a goddamn moron. A fucking moron!!!!!!! Did he think he was Johnny Fucking Appleseed???

Then, according to one of the lesbian couple the man asked "good questions" I wonder what constituted a good question? It certainly was not am I going to get fucked in the end. This brand of stupid is "inconceivable", too bad the child was not for the donor's sake.

All of them were fucking morons! Anyone willing to baster in unknown, UNTESTED sperm into themselves... needs their head examined.

This one's was ... in a court of law. Now, for the next 16 years, he gets to pay up for losing his head...

If he lost his head the court may have taken pity on him, however, he stuck his head where it did not belong and now it is time to pay the piper.

 

[WorldWatcher]

All of them were fucking morons! Anyone willing to baster in unknown, UNTESTED sperm into themselves... needs their head examined.

This one's was ... in a court of law. Now, for the next 16 years, he gets to pay up for losing his head...

If he lost his head the court may have taken pity on him, however, he stuck his head where it did not belong and now it is time to pay the piper.

If by "head" you mean "penis" then you are incorrect, the child in question was conceived through artificial insemination not vaginal/penal sex.


>>>>

 

[jillian]

do what?

What sort of problem do you imagine I have? I think ANYONE of EITHER gender who doesn't pay child support that is owed is scum. So I'm confused by your comment.

As for your scenario. Yes , I have seen situations where a man and women were married, adopted a kid then later divorced and the man was ordered to pay child support. I've also seen instances where a man and woman were just living together then broke up and the actual biological father was chased down for child support.

It's entirely a case by case decision , that is why I said earlier IF the circumstances were exactly the same .

no you haven't seen anyone ordered to pay child support for a child who wasn't theres or who they didn't adopt.

maybe your complaint should be with the state not treating lesbians and heterosexuals equally? because, if you actually read your article, you'll see that the women don't want the donor paying child support.

and here in lays the issue with lesbians having baster babies children with the involvement of a third party who is not a sperm bank.

The the two gay partners want to have a baby together... GREAT!! Any baby should be considered theirs and and theirs alone..... no one else. Just as if it were a man and woman shacking up together... THEY are responsible.

sorry, honey... i'm not going to get into the issue of what you call 'baster babies'. i think that's uncalled for. i have no problem with same sex couples having children, so that part of it is a non-issue, as it should be for 'small government' types, too.

no... if two people are living together and one is not the biological parent of the other's child, they do not have to 'pay up'.

of course, treating heterosexual and homosexual couples equally would obviate those issues.

 

[Ravi]

no you haven't seen anyone ordered to pay child support for a child who wasn't theres or who they didn't adopt.

maybe your complaint should be with the state not treating lesbians and heterosexuals equally? because, if you actually read your article, you'll see that the women don't want the donor paying child support.

and here in lays the issue with lesbians having baster babies children with the involvement of a third party who is not a sperm bank.

The the two gay partners want to have a baby together... GREAT!! Any baby should be considered theirs and and theirs alone..... no one else. Just as if it were a man and woman shacking up together... THEY are responsible.

sorry, honey... i'm not going to get into the issue of what you call 'baster babies'. i think that's uncalled for. i have no problem with same sex couples having children, so that part of it is a non-issue, as it should be for 'small government' types, too.

no... if two people are living together and one is not the biological parent of the other's child, they do not have to 'pay up'.

of course, treating heterosexual and homosexual couples equally would obviate those issues.

Exactly. The state wouldn't allow the two women to marry and it wouldn't allow the partner to adopt the child and make her a legal parent. Since they wouldn't, they have no case against the ex, they only have a case against the sperm donor.

 

[WorldWatcher]

do what?

What sort of problem do you imagine I have? I think ANYONE of EITHER gender who doesn't pay child support that is owed is scum. So I'm confused by your comment.

As for your scenario. Yes , I have seen situations where a man and women were married, adopted a kid then later divorced and the man was ordered to pay child support. I've also seen instances where a man and woman were just living together then broke up and the actual biological father was chased down for child support.

It's entirely a case by case decision , that is why I said earlier IF the circumstances were exactly the same .

no you haven't seen anyone ordered to pay child support for a child who wasn't theres or who they didn't adopt.

maybe your complaint should be with the state not treating lesbians and heterosexuals equally? because, if you actually read your article, you'll see that the women don't want the donor paying child support.

and here in lays the issue with lesbians having baster babies children with the involvement of a third party who is not a sperm bank.

The the two gay partners want to have a baby together... GREAT!! Any baby should be considered theirs and and theirs alone..... no one else. Just as if it were a man and woman shacking up together... THEY are responsible.

Actually the gender of the couple is irrelevant to what is happening. If an infertile heterosexual couple that wasn't married had a child through artifical insemination and the non-biological parent adopted the child and then got sick and lost their job and the couple applied for health insurance through the state - the sperm donor in that case (under Kansas logic) could be sued by the state for support under the dame conditions.

The state could go to the next step and go after the biological mother in an adoption when the mother gives up the baby. An adoptive pair of white parents seeking health insurance for their black baby could prompt the state to ask for the biological mothers name.

>>>>

 

[koshergrl]

Who probably should have looked into the law before jacking off for them in the next room.

Or maybe in the same room.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Who probably should have looked into the law before jacking off for them in the next room.

Or maybe in the same room.

Agreed. Same room action is much more exciting.

 

[jillian]

and here in lays the issue with lesbians having baster babies children with the involvement of a third party who is not a sperm bank.

The the two gay partners want to have a baby together... GREAT!! Any baby should be considered theirs and and theirs alone..... no one else. Just as if it were a man and woman shacking up together... THEY are responsible.

sorry, honey... i'm not going to get into the issue of what you call 'baster babies'. i think that's uncalled for. i have no problem with same sex couples having children, so that part of it is a non-issue, as it should be for 'small government' types, too.

no... if two people are living together and one is not the biological parent of the other's child, they do not have to 'pay up'.

of course, treating heterosexual and homosexual couples equally would obviate those issues.

Exactly. The state wouldn't allow the two women to marry and it wouldn't allow the partner to adopt the child and make her a legal parent. Since they wouldn't, they have no case against the ex, they only have a case against the sperm donor.

bazinga!

 

[jillian]

Who probably should have looked into the law before jacking off for them in the next room.

Or maybe in the same room.

Agreed. Same room action is much more exciting.

^^^^^^

vile

 

[Connery]

This one's was ... in a court of law. Now, for the next 16 years, he gets to pay up for losing his head...

If he lost his head the court may have taken pity on him, however, he stuck his head where it did not belong and now it is time to pay the piper.

If by "head" you mean "penis" then you are incorrect, the child in question was conceived through artificial insemination not vaginal/penal sex.


>>>>

Are you suffering from ESS?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sehy5EgR_pk](P.S.A.) Your 'Testicles & You' - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Who probably should have looked into the law before jacking off for them in the next room.

Or maybe in the same room.

Agreed. Same room action is much more exciting.

^^^^^^

vile

As intended. Sorry. Just providing some levity in a thread in dire need of some.

Besides, I didn't use any profanity or sexual language in my post, did I? I left that up to koshergrl. Naughty, naughty koshergrl.

 

[koshergrl]

Who probably should have looked into the law before jacking off for them in the next room.

Or maybe in the same room.

Agreed. Same room action is much more exciting.

^^^^^^

vile

do-it-yourself sperm donor who didn't bother to check the law = vile, it's true.

You should spend some time with these sorts of loons. I have. I'll bet there's child welfare involvement in this family, too.

 

[JoeB131]

We really need to bring the concept of "shame" back into our culture/society.

An important cultural commodity that is sadly in short supply.

Depends...

The "Conservative" would shame a woman who had sex out of wedlock, but promoted a guy who made his fortune destroying middle class jobs to be the next president.

I agree we have a lack of shame, but it's entirely misplaced what people should be ashamed of.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

We really need to bring the concept of "shame" back into our culture/society.

An important cultural commodity that is sadly in short supply.

Depends...

The "Conservative" would shame a woman who had sex out of wedlock, but promoted a guy who made his fortune destroying middle class jobs to be the next president.

I agree we have a lack of shame, but it's entirely misplaced what people should be ashamed of.

How can shame be misplaced if there is a lack of it? If there is a lack it cannot be placed at all.

 

[Si modo]

If concealing the donor's identity was part of the contract between the lesbian and the donor, then I would hope the donor sues the lesbian for breach of contract with damages equal to any support he might be ordered to pay...PLUS all attorney's fees associated with that.

 

[Connery]

If concealing the donor's identity was part of the contract between the lesbian and the donor, then I would hope the donor sues the lesbian for breach of contract with damages equal to any support he might be ordered to pay...PLUS all attorney's fees associated with that.

Sperm-man should have checked the laws before sending his juice out. Should the lesbian couple know his name and withhold that information from the state they would be perpetrating a fraud and that carries it's own baggage. The parties could not contract the name out of existence on the State's behalf for this purpose.

 

[AmyNation]

The state is in a quandary. They don't allow same sex adoption, and they don't recognize same sex parents. So when the mother went in to seek help, she wasnt allowed to put the other mothers name down to collect child support.

I hope the donor gets a great lawyer and the state loses such a ridiculous case.

That bit of fyi clarifies a few things.

So the laws of the state of Kansas are 'outdated'?

They have 8 children--I don't understand how they were able to do this.

It's my opinion the law is outdated. You can buy an at home artificial insemanation kit for $29.99, and even if you purchase sperm from a sperm bank, you don't have to use the banks doctor but can have it sent right to your home. The law is written in a way that does not protect donors, even ones that go through the "proper channels".

As to the 8 children, Kanas allows single parent adoption, just not gay couples, the children were foster care children and were adopted as single parent adoptions.

 

[wavingrl]

The state is in a quandary. They don't allow same sex adoption, and they don't recognize same sex parents. So when the mother went in to seek help, she wasnt allowed to put the other mothers name down to collect child support.

I hope the donor gets a great lawyer and the state loses such a ridiculous case.

That bit of fyi clarifies a few things.

So the laws of the state of Kansas are 'outdated'?

They have 8 children--I don't understand how they were able to do this.

It's my opinion the law is outdated. You can buy an at home artificial insemanation kit for $29.99, and even if you purchase sperm from a sperm bank, you don't have to use the banks doctor but can have it sent right to your home. The law is written in a way that does not protect donors, even ones that go through the "proper channels".

As to the 8 children, Kanas allows single parent adoption, just not gay couples, the children were foster care children and were adopted as single parent adoptions.

??The case will be heard, a decision made and I suppose appeals can be filed-??State Supreme Court??

I honestly don't understand the legal process. Then Kansas law is either revised or not?

Being the sort of person I am--I wouldn't have made this choice.

thinking to myself--what sort of radical change is needed in the US? My state will move at glacial speed for better or worse.

 

[JustTheFacts]

The state is in a quandary. They don't allow same sex adoption, and they don't recognize same sex parents. So when the mother went in to seek help, she wasnt allowed to put the other mothers name down to collect child support.

I hope the donor gets a great lawyer and the state loses such a ridiculous case.

That bit of fyi clarifies a few things.

So the laws of the state of Kansas are 'outdated'?

They have 8 children--I don't understand how they were able to do this.

It's my opinion the law is outdated. You can buy an at home artificial insemanation kit for $29.99, and even if you purchase sperm from a sperm bank, you don't have to use the banks doctor but can have it sent right to your home. The law is written in a way that does not protect donors, even ones that go through the "proper channels".

As to the 8 children, Kanas allows single parent adoption, just not gay couples, the children were foster care children and were adopted as single parent adoptions.

And that is a valid discussion to have.

Pretending that these people were treated differently bc of the gay however is not

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The "sperm donor" answered a Craigslist ad, had sex with the woman and NOW says he didn't know there wasn't a doctor involved.

The women are not asking for support. The state is.