Sperm donor to lesbian couple ordered to pay child support

[Quantum Windbag]

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 enforces the law.

Use of force is not a right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That has got to be the dumbest thing you ever said. Is there some reason we can't make both of those shameful actions? How about not shaming the woman and shaming the guy who did what you described, if he actually existed?

 

[AmyNation]

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So the laws of the state of Kansas are 'outdated'?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It's my opinion the law is outdated.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

There's this little thing courts use called "in loco parentis".

As has been mentioned before, there are numerous cases on the books of husbands and boyfriends being forced to pay child support for children that are not biologically there's, because they have assumed the role of the parent.

If this had been a hertosexual couple, I have zero doubts that the mother would have been allowed to put her partners name down for support, and the state would have accepted it without question.

 

[AmyNation]

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.

No one is claiming he had sex with her. In fact, his defense is "I gave them the donation on a good faith assumption they'd use a doctor".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Is that like you pretending you know what you are talking about?

Simple fact, if this had been a dual sex couple the state would have assumed the ex was responsible even if his name had not been on the birth certificate. They might have elected to find out more if, after pursuing the ex, they discovered he was not financially able to provide for the child, but they would have gone after him first. In this case they totally ignored the ex because the couple happened to be of the same sex, and demanded to know who the other biological parent was. They then made up an argument to make him responsible despite the fact that a legal adoption ceded his parental rights and responsibilities.

Feel free to prove me wrong by finding dual sex infertile couples who were treated this way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Thanks for posting without reading anything.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

There's this little thing courts use called "in loco parentis".

As has been mentioned before, there are numerous cases on the books of husbands and boyfriends being forced to pay child support for children that are not biologically there's, because they have assumed the role of the parent.

If this had been a hertosexual couple, I have zero doubts that the mother would have been allowed to put her partners name down for support, and the state would have accepted it without question.

I agree 100%.

 

[Ravi]

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

There's this little thing courts use called "in loco parentis".

As has been mentioned before, there are numerous cases on the books of husbands and boyfriends being forced to pay child support for children that are not biologically there's, because they have assumed the role of the parent.

If this had been a hertosexual couple, I have zero doubts that the mother would have been allowed to put her partners name down for support, and the state would have accepted it without question.

I'd like to see links to those numerous cases. The ex was never given legal guardianship so in loco parentis does not apply. If it even would apply to child support.

 

[AmyNation]

Non Biological Father Liable for Child Support : New York Divorce Report : Daniel E. Clement: New Jersey & NY Lawyer & Attorney for Family Law & Pre-Nuptials
Welcome To Harris + Harris LLP Law Firm in Toronto, Ontario
Dads by Default - Real People Stories : People.com


Google has plenty more.

 

[Ravi]

Non Biological Father Liable for Child Support : New York Divorce Report : Daniel E. Clement: New Jersey & NY Lawyer & Attorney for Family Law & Pre-Nuptials
Welcome To Harris + Harris LLP Law Firm in Toronto, Ontario
Dads by Default - Real People Stories : People.com


Google has plenty more.

Canada doesn't count. In both those other cases, the couple was married when the children were born. In the first case the "father" didn't dispute he was the father to the court until he got smacked two years later for failing to pay child support.

These do not apply to the case in the OP....these two women were not legally married and the girlfriend was not allowed to adopt.

 

[LittleNipper]

Homosexual couples should not be allowed to have children by means of a third party. If they believe they were born gay, then having children should be totally beyond the scope of such affairs. I other words, since homosexuals supposedly hate having relations with someone of the opposite sex, that should indicate that nature didn't mean for such to sire children. Children need both a mother and a father. The welfare of the children is socially the most important issue. What two individuals want, as far as sex is concerned, is of no importance. Only the upbringing of children under the best of circumstances should be the desire for society at large.

 

[freedombecki]

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.

Er, head refers to that foamy stuff in beer, for one...

 

[Ravi]

Homosexual couples should not be allowed to have children by means of a third party. If they believe they were born gay, then having children should be totally beyond the scope of such affairs. I other words, since homosexuals supposedly hate having relations with someone of the opposite sex, that should indicate that nature didn't mean for such to sire children. Children need both a mother and a father. The welfare of the children is socially the most important issue. What two individuals want, as far as sex is concerned, is of no importance. Only the upbringing of children under the best of circumstances should be the desire for society at large.

How did Ted Haggart manage to have so many children, as gay as he is? Should the state take his children away from him?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Homosexual couples should not be allowed to have children by means of a third party. If they believe they were born gay, then having children should be totally beyond the scope of such affairs. I other words, since homosexuals supposedly hate having relations with someone of the opposite sex, that should indicate that nature didn't mean for such to sire children. Children need both a mother and a father. The welfare of the children is socially the most important issue. What two individuals want, as far as sex is concerned, is of no importance. Only the upbringing of children under the best of circumstances should be the desire for society at large.

If you consider yourself a small government, freedom loving individual...






......................... You should stop lying to yourself.




>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Er, head refers to that foamy stuff in beer, for one...

The space where commodes and urinals are located on ships, for another...



>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Non Biological Father Liable for Child Support : New York Divorce Report : Daniel E. Clement: New Jersey & NY Lawyer & Attorney for Family Law & Pre-Nuptials
Welcome To Harris + Harris LLP Law Firm in Toronto, Ontario
Dads by Default - Real People Stories : People.com


Google has plenty more.

Canada doesn't count. In both those other cases, the couple was married when the children were born. In the first case the "father" didn't dispute he was the father to the court until he got smacked two years later for failing to pay child support.

These do not apply to the case in the OP....these two women were not legally married and the girlfriend was not allowed to adopt.

The girlfriend did adopt, the state is just pretending it doesn't count.

 

[LittleNipper]

Homosexual couples should not be allowed to have children by means of a third party. If they believe they were born gay, then having children should be totally beyond the scope of such affairs. I other words, since homosexuals supposedly hate having relations with someone of the opposite sex, that should indicate that nature didn't mean for such to sire children. Children need both a mother and a father. The welfare of the children is socially the most important issue. What two individuals want, as far as sex is concerned, is of no importance. Only the upbringing of children under the best of circumstances should be the desire for society at large.

How did Ted Haggart manage to have so many children, as gay as he is? Should the state take his children away from him?

I have the feeling that Rev. Haggart may have made sinful mistakes, but he would not believe society should support sinful behavior. Also, Mr. Haggart had the children with his wife. He didn't involve the an egg donor and then skip out on his responsibilities.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

That has got to be the dumbest thing you ever said. Is there some reason we can't make both of those shameful actions? How about not shaming the woman and shaming the guy who did what you described, if he actually existed?

I think you need to get your medications checked again...

 

[wavingrl]

Homosexual couples should not be allowed to have children by means of a third party. If they believe they were born gay, then having children should be totally beyond the scope of such affairs. I other words, since homosexuals supposedly hate having relations with someone of the opposite sex, that should indicate that nature didn't mean for such to sire children. Children need both a mother and a father. The welfare of the children is socially the most important issue. What two individuals want, as far as sex is concerned, is of no importance. Only the upbringing of children under the best of circumstances should be the desire for society at large.

How did Ted Haggart manage to have so many children, as gay as he is? Should the state take his children away from him?

I have the feeling that Rev. Haggart may have made sinful mistakes, but he would not believe society should support sinful behavior. Also, Mr. Haggart had the children with his wife. He didn't involve the an egg donor and then skip out on his responsibilities.

I suppose I think the traditional family is more effective--if anyone can find ways to achieve that. Same sex couples can certainly provide good homes for children. How that might be achieved is something I do not know. There are many same sex couples in my neighborhood but they do not have children and would not casually discuss their private business with me.

It would not occur to me to circumvent the law on such a critical issue. Did an attorney draw up the contract between the donor and recipients? That hasn't been clarified.

What a mess. I really hope that those involved didn't do this to 'set a precedent' to challenge that law. Perhaps these points will be covered on CNN tonight. A royal waste of time to speculate any further--in my case.

A few weeks ago a lesbian couple backed by Rainbow/Push/Occupy movement-- moved into a foreclosed house/now owned by the bank. The previous owners gave their consent--although I wouldn't think that would matter. If the bank, located in another state, doesn't take legal action then they will stay in the house.

eta: http://www.thegavoice.com/index.php...n-couple-keeps-house-thanks-to-occupy-atlanta

That sort of thing doesn't sit well with me. I can see some parallels in these two situations. Not so sure this sort of thing is ethical.

 

[jtpr312]

You invlove yourself in this type of filth, this sick, unGodly, perverted situation and you get what you deserve. I have no sympathy for this guy adn hope he has to pay till this kid is grown. He never should have involved himself in such a perverse situation. Maybe this will deter other jackasses from participating in the corrupt family engineering experiments of the deviants.