Sperm donor to lesbian couple ordered to pay child support

[April]

I'm not sure whether he can sue for custody. The article says he gave up all parental rights. Being forced to pay child support might be a game changer, though.

Giving up parental RIGHTS does not mean that parental RESPONSIBILITIES are also relinquished.

I used to have a friend that was going to sign over his rights cause he could not afford his child support. His mom started making his payments so he would not have to do that. IDK about in other states, but apparently in TN, it does

It's the same in Indiana...a close friend of mine signed over his rights to his son years ago there...he then did not have to pay child support after that.

 

[tjvh]

Why should the sperm donor have to pay if they are not going to have anything more to do with the child's life? If the people who are going to be the parents can't provide what is needed, the baby should go to someone who can. A true parent will put the child's well being first and foremost.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

The alleged parent was doing just that...by applying for public assistance to support the child, she only had the child's best interest in mind.

If she needed Welfare to support the child, maybe she should have thought about the economics of having a child before she embarked on her lunacy. To some, the words personal responsibility still have some meaning.

 

[Sunshine]

My guess is this mess is as follows, and in fact, I actually know this family:

You have a couple, who has some kids together. Wife's best friend moves in with them, gets knocked up by the husband. First wife moves out, goes on welfare, and the state establishes a support order against dad.

After divorce, first wife moves back in because they are, after all, all friends..and all their kids are brothers and sisters. Then wife and friend decide they're a couple, and dad moves out. Another order is established, this time for the second wife's kid with him.

Then child welfare steps in for a while, yanks the kids, and they all mill around for a while in different conglomerations.

Then the two women decide they're going to portray themselves as *partners* but one gets knocked up by ex, so they determine that they will call him a *sperm donor* and raise the kid themselves.

They're on welfare of course, throughout all this...so once the baby is born and they name the *sperm donor*....who just happens to have other kids with these women that he is also supposed to pay child support on, and the state establishes an order against him.

He decides he wants to be a *co-parent* and they bounce in and out of his house for a while....

Until he decides he shouldn't have to pay child support for the last kid, since they're no longer giving him blow jobs, and files to have the order terminated.

At which time he probably also decides to claim he's not the sperm donor, after all, and a paternity test is done...which either eliminates him as the sperm donor (but the state won't care because either his name is on the birth certificate, or he has acknowledged the child as his own at some point) or establishes him as the sperm donor, in which case the state still is going to pursue child support.
Not that it matters. He won't ever pay jack.

^^^^^true story. My clients. Jolly crew.

Oh God!

 

[Sunshine]

Why should the sperm donor have to pay if they are not going to have anything more to do with the child's life? If the people who are going to be the parents can't provide what is needed, the baby should go to someone who can. A true parent will put the child's well being first and foremost.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

The alleged parent was doing just that...by applying for public assistance to support the child, she only had the child's best interest in mind.

If she needed Welfare to support the child, maybe she should have thought about the economics of having a child before she embarked on her lunacy. To some, the words personal responsibility still have some meaning.

That's too easy. LOL

 

[Sunshine]

He is the father but this sort of thing will scare off all sperm donors everywhere.

So, it was niether Mom that filed...it was the state that filed.
In any circumstance, he should have signed some sort of form waiving any and all rights to the child...that is usually the norm in other cases...wonder why he didn't.

He did, but the state is contesting it on the grounds that he didn't "donate" to an anonymous sperm bank.

So, KG's theory sounds all the more plausible.

 

[AmyNation]

He is the father but this sort of thing will scare off all sperm donors everywhere.

So, it was niether Mom that filed...it was the state that filed.
In any circumstance, he should have signed some sort of form waiving any and all rights to the child...that is usually the norm in other cases...wonder why he didn't.

Ah, but he did. He waived all parental rights. That left the "couple" free to adopt said child. Now the state comes back because the "parent" has applied for public assistance to support said child. Common practice is for the state to go after the "father" to pay that support. In this case, the "father" is another woman who split up with the child's mother. Personally, I think they should be going after the other "parent" to pay child support, not the sperm donor. But, if enough cases like this occur, maybe the guys will finally figure out that "donating" to this type of charity isn't such a great idea.

He was paid for his donation, and the other mother was supporting her children.

 

[AmyNation]

Why should the sperm donor have to pay if they are not going to have anything more to do with the child's life? If the people who are going to be the parents can't provide what is needed, the baby should go to someone who can. A true parent will put the child's well being first and foremost.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

The alleged parent was doing just that...by applying for public assistance to support the child, she only had the child's best interest in mind.

If she needed Welfare to support the child, maybe she should have thought about the economics of having a child before she embarked on her lunacy. To some, the words personal responsibility still have some meaning.

You're right, no one should ever have children, just in case they get seriously ill in the future.

 

[Sunshine]

The alleged parent was doing just that...by applying for public assistance to support the child, she only had the child's best interest in mind.

If she needed Welfare to support the child, maybe she should have thought about the economics of having a child before she embarked on her lunacy. To some, the words personal responsibility still have some meaning.

You're right, no one should ever have children, just in case they get seriously ill in the future.

So people on welfare should have all they children they can punch out in their lifetime. And we, the American taxpayer should have to pay for it. Groovy.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

The alleged parent was doing just that...by applying for public assistance to support the child, she only had the child's best interest in mind.

If she needed Welfare to support the child, maybe she should have thought about the economics of having a child before she embarked on her lunacy. To some, the words personal responsibility still have some meaning.

You're right, no one should ever have children, just in case they get seriously ill in the future.

No one can predict the future, but people can see how things are in the present.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[AmyNation]

If she needed Welfare to support the child, maybe she should have thought about the economics of having a child before she embarked on her lunacy. To some, the words personal responsibility still have some meaning.

You're right, no one should ever have children, just in case they get seriously ill in the future.

So people on welfare should have all they children they can punch out in their lifetime. And we, the American taxpayer should have to pay for it. Groovy.

I really don't know what you're whining about. This family is the classic case of why we have social welfare programs.

They were financially stable, adopted several children, and together for 8 years before deciding to have a child. One parent worked, the other was a full time mom.Now the primary worker has a serious illness and has lost her job and with it her health insurance, the parents sought help from the state so their young child could have health care.

 

[gallantwarrior]

So, it was niether Mom that filed...it was the state that filed.
In any circumstance, he should have signed some sort of form waiving any and all rights to the child...that is usually the norm in other cases...wonder why he didn't.

Ah, but he did. He waived all parental rights. That left the "couple" free to adopt said child. Now the state comes back because the "parent" has applied for public assistance to support said child. Common practice is for the state to go after the "father" to pay that support. In this case, the "father" is another woman who split up with the child's mother. Personally, I think they should be going after the other "parent" to pay child support, not the sperm donor. But, if enough cases like this occur, maybe the guys will finally figure out that "donating" to this type of charity isn't such a great idea.

He was paid for his donation, and the other mother was supporting her children.

The other "mother" should continue to support the child. This was apparently not an issue until public assistance was demanded. Unfortunately, the state has rules that apply in such cases. What I don't understand is, when one parent signs away parental rights and the child is adopted by someone else, that's usually the end of the story.

 

[April]

Read, you moron. He and the couple had a signed agreement in which he gave up custody and they gave up claims for future support. The state is ignoring this agreement.

The agreement is invalid. A person cannot give away the rights of another. A child has a right to support from parents that are totally independent of the rights of the parent and can not be negotiated or contracted away.

The agreement is only invalid if the state wins the court battle.

The state should not even be able to sue for custody if the father gives up any and ALL parental rights to begin with-jmo.

 

[April]

Ah, but he did. He waived all parental rights. That left the "couple" free to adopt said child. Now the state comes back because the "parent" has applied for public assistance to support said child. Common practice is for the state to go after the "father" to pay that support. In this case, the "father" is another woman who split up with the child's mother. Personally, I think they should be going after the other "parent" to pay child support, not the sperm donor. But, if enough cases like this occur, maybe the guys will finally figure out that "donating" to this type of charity isn't such a great idea.

He was paid for his donation, and the other mother was supporting her children.

The other "mother" should continue to support the child. This was apparently not an issue until public assistance was demanded. Unfortunately, the state has rules that apply in such cases. What I don't understand is, when one parent signs away parental rights and the child is adopted by someone else, that's usually the end of the story.

Agreed.

 

[mdainvegas]

No more sperm donors for lesbians.

 

[Katzndogz]

Giving up parental RIGHTS does not mean that parental RESPONSIBILITIES are also relinquished.

I used to have a friend that was going to sign over his rights cause he could not afford his child support. His mom started making his payments so he would not have to do that. IDK about in other states, but apparently in TN, it does

It's the same in Indiana...a close friend of mine signed over his rights to his son years ago there...he then did not have to pay child support after that.

It's in the why. Perhaps the mother wasn't on welfare or there is an adoptive father. All it really takes is for someone to ask.

 

[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.

 

[Jarlaxle]

If the state is pursuing child support from him it's because the kids' lesbian mommies are on welfare.

Dumbasses. Yet another example of the costs of depravity. Poor kid.

Why would they allow them the option if they are on welfare? That seems absolutely ridiculous

The state is paying their medical premiums, food and probably giving them cash. The state goes after anyone who has the potential of helping them recoup some of that cost.

I have a client who has child support orders against TWO MEN for the same child. She's a lifer. One is on the birth cert, the other is the biological father. The state nails them both.

They both need to skip the country.

 

[Jarlaxle]

My guess is this mess is as follows, and in fact, I actually know this family:

You have a couple, who has some kids together. Wife's best friend moves in with them, gets knocked up by the husband. First wife moves out, goes on welfare, and the state establishes a support order against dad.

After divorce, first wife moves back in because they are, after all, all friends..and all their kids are brothers and sisters. Then wife and friend decide they're a couple, and dad moves out. Another order is established, this time for the second wife's kid with him.

Then child welfare steps in for a while, yanks the kids, and they all mill around for a while in different conglomerations.

Then the two women decide they're going to portray themselves as *partners* but one gets knocked up by ex, so they determine that they will call him a *sperm donor* and raise the kid themselves.

They're on welfare of course, throughout all this...so once the baby is born and they name the *sperm donor*....who just happens to have other kids with these women that he is also supposed to pay child support on, and the state establishes an order against him.

He decides he wants to be a *co-parent* and they bounce in and out of his house for a while....

Until he decides he shouldn't have to pay child support for the last kid, since they're no longer giving him blow jobs, and files to have the order terminated.

At which time he probably also decides to claim he's not the sperm donor, after all, and a paternity test is done...which either eliminates him as the sperm donor (but the state won't care because either his name is on the birth certificate, or he has acknowledged the child as his own at some point) or establishes him as the sperm donor, in which case the state still is going to pursue child support.
Not that it matters. He won't ever pay jack.

^^^^^true story. My clients. Jolly crew.

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

How about the concept of "sterilization"?

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

He made a very simple and basic mistake: he told them his name. It's that simple. He should have kept things TOTALLY anonymous. They cannot reveal what they do not know.

 

[AmyNation]

The state should never had asked for his name. He's not listed on the birth certificate, and he has a legal contract with the mothers relinquishing all rights, including child support. He thinks they came after him to make a political statement about same sex couples. I hope he gets a shark lawyer and wins his case.