Sperm donor to lesbian couple ordered to pay child support

[syrenn]

This kid doesn't have a dad. Even if the court forces him to pay child support, he still won't be a dad. And the kid doesn't have a dead beat mom. The drama llama is on the loose today.

The child will always have a dad/father... He is half of the dna the child carries. The court wants the DAD to pay child support.


the kid has two moms..... if second mom is not paying child support... then she is a dead beat mom.


ya cant have it both ways just because they are lesbians.

 

[syrenn]

Thankfully that isn't the case any more. Still SOME bias towards mothers, but nothing like there was 20 years ago.

agreed, some women are court ordered to pay child support..... and just lie men they don't.

Sad to say this poor kid may have a dead beat dad...along with a dead beat mother.

A higher percentage of women who are ordered to pay child support don't pay then men .

The difference is there are 100 men paying for every 1 woman so there are more men who don't pay.

The term dead beat dad is a joke.

funny that..... how is the weather in AR conjob?

 

[AmyNation]

This kid doesn't have a dad. Even if the court forces him to pay child support, he still won't be a dad. And the kid doesn't have a dead beat mom. The drama llama is on the loose today.

The child will always have a dad/father... He is half of the dna the child carries. The court wants the DAD to pay child support.


the kid has two moms..... if second mom is not paying child support... then she is a dead beat mom.


ya cant have it both ways just because they are lesbians.

DNA doesn't make someone a parent, this guy would be no more a dad to the kid if she lived with a gay couple or a straight one. As to the mom, every article I've read, and linked, clearly says that the mothers, while not together continue to support the children and co-parent. So no, no dead beats here.

 

[JustTheFacts]

agreed, some women are court ordered to pay child support..... and just lie men they don't.

Sad to say this poor kid may have a dead beat dad...along with a dead beat mother.

A higher percentage of women who are ordered to pay child support don't pay then men .

The difference is there are 100 men paying for every 1 woman so there are more men who don't pay.

The term dead beat dad is a joke.

funny that..... how is the weather in AR conjob?

That statement is no conjob.

Deadbeat parent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I mean it's only roughly an 8% difference, but the statement remains true. A higher percentage of women are dead beat parents than fathers.

 

[syrenn]

This kid doesn't have a dad. Even if the court forces him to pay child support, he still won't be a dad. And the kid doesn't have a dead beat mom. The drama llama is on the loose today.

The child will always have a dad/father... He is half of the dna the child carries. The court wants the DAD to pay child support.


the kid has two moms..... if second mom is not paying child support... then she is a dead beat mom.


ya cant have it both ways just because they are lesbians.

DNA doesn't make someone a parent, this guy would be no more a dad to the kid if she lived with a gay couple or a straight one. As to the mom, every article I've read, and linked, clearly says that the mothers, while not together continue to support the children and co-parent. So no, no dead beats here.

so we are dad/father semanticist here.


so if said other mother is paying enough to take care of the child...why is this a problem? If she is not... i would put her into deadbeat status. Just like it would if she were a man.


yes yes yes... i now, they involved the state looking for entitlements.

 

[AmyNation]

They are seeking medical insurance from the state, for the baby ,because the mother is seriously ill. I don't consider that being a dead beat, but clearly you do. Difference of opinion I suppose.

 

[Si modo]

Thankfully that isn't the case any more. Still SOME bias towards mothers, but nothing like there was 20 years ago.

agreed, some women are court ordered to pay child support..... and just lie men they don't.

Sad to say this poor kid may have a dead beat dad...along with a dead beat mother.

A higher percentage of women who are ordered to pay child support don't pay then men .

The difference is there are 100 men paying for every 1 woman so there are more men who don't pay.

The term dead beat dad is a joke.

As far as I know, only the custodial parent receives the child support, so the bias in the courts to give custody to mothers is still pretty obvious with your numbers.

 

[JustTheFacts]

agreed, some women are court ordered to pay child support..... and just lie men they don't.

Sad to say this poor kid may have a dead beat dad...along with a dead beat mother.

A higher percentage of women who are ordered to pay child support don't pay then men .

The difference is there are 100 men paying for every 1 woman so there are more men who don't pay.

The term dead beat dad is a joke.

As far as I know, only the custodial parent receives the child support, so the bias in the courts to give custody to mothers is still pretty obvious with your numbers.

Of course only the custodial parent receives child support. And yes most of those are mothers, but I'm not entirely sure that is due to judicial bias. It could be that just more men walk away from their responsibilities in general.

Doesn't mean women are many more responsible than men, just that it is obviously easier to say oh hell no and walk away when you have gotten a woman pregnant than it is for a woman to have a child then walk away.

An interesting study would be to compare the number of women who get custody in a divorce versus men who do. That would probably give a clearer picture of any potential judicial bias.

 

[Si modo]

A higher percentage of women who are ordered to pay child support don't pay then men .

The difference is there are 100 men paying for every 1 woman so there are more men who don't pay.

The term dead beat dad is a joke.

As far as I know, only the custodial parent receives the child support, so the bias in the courts to give custody to mothers is still pretty obvious with your numbers.

Of course only the custodial parent receives child support. And yes most of those are mothers, but I'm not entirely sure that is due to judicial bias. It could be that just more men walk away from their responsibilities in general.

Doesn't mean women are many more responsible than men, just that it is obviously easier to say oh hell no and walk away when you have gotten a woman pregnant than it is for a woman to have a child then walk away.

An interesting study would be to compare the number of women who get custody in a divorce versus men who do. That would probably give a clearer picture of any potential judicial bias.

Oh, they just veil the bias in calling it "the best interest of the child" to have the mother as the custodial parent.

Calling the bias by a different name doesn't change the bias.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Still his fault for being an idiot. What sort of idiot trusts two people he met off of Craigslist for legal advice? LOL I mean seriously I know you're trying everything you can think of to absolve the guy of his own fault, but it can't be done. He's an idiot who should have consulted a lawyer.

Or better yet hit X when he first got the urge to go to Craigslist.

As for your second sentence, I in noway believe gays are born that way. Too many cases of switch hitters, or people who were born that way at age 40 or whatever, so not sure what your point was there.

So, how do you know the lesbians did not have an attorney write up that agreement before they put a notice on Craigslist?

I'm not seeing that in the link.

And, I'll say again, if the contract is a solid one...elements present, etc....the courts usually take contracts quite seriously.

I haven't much luck predicting what a court will do, but, as I said, I hope the KS court is as wise as the VA courts.

Are you terminally stupid, or what? The courts will not recognize a contract between two people that terminates some sort of rights of a third.

This is why parents, who come to the court with a divorce/custody decree that affords one parent custody and absolves the other of all child support resposibility, ALWAYS THROW THOSE OUT. They won't entertain them. Because the PARENTS DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT. The child has a RIGHT to support from both parents. If these morons had done this properly, then they would have gone to the court when the child was born, and the dad could have relinquished parental rights, provided someone else was adopting the child and accepting those rights.

Oh wait, this state doesn't allow that...so they could have moved to another state, or not come up with this arrangement in the first place.

They knew what they were doing, and tried to circumvent the law. Now the child is in need, #2 mommy has flown the coop, and they want to insist that the state pay what the father doesn't want to.

Too ******* bad. If you want the state to pay your bills, the state is going to make sure you pursue ALL assets on behalf of the child. They don't give a shit what the parents *want*. The #1 priority is the support of the child, for the sake of the child. The courts do not traditionally ignore that because the parents want to shirk the court, and the law. The law exists as it is for exactly this reason...so that when parents try to walk away from their responsibility, the child has recourse to the support they have a right to.

All adoptions are invalid? Seriously?

 

[JustTheFacts]

As far as I know, only the custodial parent receives the child support, so the bias in the courts to give custody to mothers is still pretty obvious with your numbers.

Of course only the custodial parent receives child support. And yes most of those are mothers, but I'm not entirely sure that is due to judicial bias. It could be that just more men walk away from their responsibilities in general.

Doesn't mean women are many more responsible than men, just that it is obviously easier to say oh hell no and walk away when you have gotten a woman pregnant than it is for a woman to have a child then walk away.

An interesting study would be to compare the number of women who get custody in a divorce versus men who do. That would probably give a clearer picture of any potential judicial bias.

Oh, they just veil the bias in calling it "the best interest of the child" to have the mother as the custodial parent.

Calling the bias by a different name doesn't change the bias.

I think that bias is less and less prevalent. Twenty years ago a father just didn't get custody, now it can happen if the mother is the least fit of the two.

Actually it seems like the current trend is joint custody with both parents just paying for their own when possible.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you terminally stupid, or what? The courts will not recognize a contract between two people that terminates some sort of rights of a third.

This is why parents, who come to the court with a divorce/custody decree that affords one parent custody and absolves the other of all child support resposibility, ALWAYS THROW THOSE OUT. They won't entertain them. Because the PARENTS DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT. The child has a RIGHT to support from both parents. If these morons had done this properly, then they would have gone to the court when the child was born, and the dad could have relinquished parental rights, provided someone else was adopting the child and accepting those rights.

Oh wait, this state doesn't allow that...so they could have moved to another state, or not come up with this arrangement in the first place.

They knew what they were doing, and tried to circumvent the law. Now the child is in need, #2 mommy has flown the coop, and they want to insist that the state pay what the father doesn't want to.

Too ******* bad. If you want the state to pay your bills, the state is going to make sure you pursue ALL assets on behalf of the child. They don't give a shit what the parents *want*. The #1 priority is the support of the child, for the sake of the child. The courts do not traditionally ignore that because the parents want to shirk the court, and the law. The law exists as it is for exactly this reason...so that when parents try to walk away from their responsibility, the child has recourse to the support they have a right to.

Is it the dude's fault for not protecting himself better legally, sure? But the lesbians are also some trashy bitches for having a child they couldn't support and then sticking it to the person who did them the favor of letting them have a child in the first place. I mean who the **** donates sperm expecting to raise the kid? That's not logical.

The fact that we are talking about lesbians has exactly zero to do with the actions the state took and is irrelevant to this story, take your ant gay bullshit elsewhere.

The fact that we are talking about lesbians is the only reason we are having this conversation, if this had been a heterosexual couple who had done this Kansas would simply have assumed the other person in the relationship is the father.

 

[JustTheFacts]

So, how do you know the lesbians did not have an attorney write up that agreement before they put a notice on Craigslist?

I'm not seeing that in the link.

And, I'll say again, if the contract is a solid one...elements present, etc....the courts usually take contracts quite seriously.

I haven't much luck predicting what a court will do, but, as I said, I hope the KS court is as wise as the VA courts.

Are you terminally stupid, or what? The courts will not recognize a contract between two people that terminates some sort of rights of a third.

This is why parents, who come to the court with a divorce/custody decree that affords one parent custody and absolves the other of all child support resposibility, ALWAYS THROW THOSE OUT. They won't entertain them. Because the PARENTS DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT. The child has a RIGHT to support from both parents. If these morons had done this properly, then they would have gone to the court when the child was born, and the dad could have relinquished parental rights, provided someone else was adopting the child and accepting those rights.

Oh wait, this state doesn't allow that...so they could have moved to another state, or not come up with this arrangement in the first place.

They knew what they were doing, and tried to circumvent the law. Now the child is in need, #2 mommy has flown the coop, and they want to insist that the state pay what the father doesn't want to.

Too ******* bad. If you want the state to pay your bills, the state is going to make sure you pursue ALL assets on behalf of the child. They don't give a shit what the parents *want*. The #1 priority is the support of the child, for the sake of the child. The courts do not traditionally ignore that because the parents want to shirk the court, and the law. The law exists as it is for exactly this reason...so that when parents try to walk away from their responsibility, the child has recourse to the support they have a right to.

All adoptions are invalid? Seriously?

I don't see that stated anywhere in the quote you quoted. Making things up are you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What's the matter with Kansas, homophobia for one thing. What a dumb state, is it really possible that the red states are losing IQ points by the minute. Survey says, yes. Kansas is ahead on this count.

"Bauer and Schreiner had signed an agreement with Marotta releasing him from all responsibility for the child. The state argues in court documents that because a doctor did not handle the artificial insemination as required by state law, the contract among the three is not valid."

Proof that even a clock that runs slow is right occasionally.

 

[Si modo]

Of course only the custodial parent receives child support. And yes most of those are mothers, but I'm not entirely sure that is due to judicial bias. It could be that just more men walk away from their responsibilities in general.

Doesn't mean women are many more responsible than men, just that it is obviously easier to say oh hell no and walk away when you have gotten a woman pregnant than it is for a woman to have a child then walk away.

An interesting study would be to compare the number of women who get custody in a divorce versus men who do. That would probably give a clearer picture of any potential judicial bias.

Oh, they just veil the bias in calling it "the best interest of the child" to have the mother as the custodial parent.

Calling the bias by a different name doesn't change the bias.

I think that bias is less and less prevalent. Twenty years ago a father just didn't get custody, now it can happen if the mother is the least fit of the two.

Actually it seems like the current trend is joint custody with both parents just paying for their own when possible.

The severity of the bias would likely depend on the state in which one lives.

The bias is crystal clear in Virginia - mothers get away with murder (literally, likely), and they still get the kid.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Oh, they just veil the bias in calling it "the best interest of the child" to have the mother as the custodial parent.

Calling the bias by a different name doesn't change the bias.

I think that bias is less and less prevalent. Twenty years ago a father just didn't get custody, now it can happen if the mother is the least fit of the two.

Actually it seems like the current trend is joint custody with both parents just paying for their own when possible.

The severity of the bias would likely depend on the state in which one lives.

The bias is crystal clear in Virginia - mothers get away with murder (literally, likely), and they still get the kid.

I was speaking from a national standpoint, since were discussing national numbers. I actually have little interest in dong a state by state breakdown especially since it's not even a topic worth arguing about. since the bottom line is we both obviously disapprove of dead beat parents.

 

[Si modo]

I think that bias is less and less prevalent. Twenty years ago a father just didn't get custody, now it can happen if the mother is the least fit of the two.

Actually it seems like the current trend is joint custody with both parents just paying for their own when possible.

The severity of the bias would likely depend on the state in which one lives.

The bias is crystal clear in Virginia - mothers get away with murder (literally, likely), and they still get the kid.

I was speaking from a national standpoint, since were discussing national numbers. I actually have little interest in dong a state by state breakdown especially since it's not even a topic worth arguing about. since the bottom line is we both obviously disapprove of dead beat parents.

I find national numbers irrelevant, as child support is a state's jurisdiction.

What is called a dead beat parent, is not always a real dead beat. There are too many times when a bitter ex uses the courts to dick around with their ex with the child as the number one pawn in their game.

 

[mudwhistle]

So when did a sperm become a human-being all of the sudden?

 

[JustTheFacts]

The severity of the bias would likely depend on the state in which one lives.

The bias is crystal clear in Virginia - mothers get away with murder (literally, likely), and they still get the kid.

I was speaking from a national standpoint, since were discussing national numbers. I actually have little interest in dong a state by state breakdown especially since it's not even a topic worth arguing about. since the bottom line is we both obviously disapprove of dead beat parents.

I find national numbers irrelevant, as child support is a state's jurisdiction.

What is called a dead beat parent, is not always a real dead beat. There are too many times when a bitter ex uses the courts to dick around with their ex with the child as the number one pawn in their game.

yes and no on the state jurisdiction, there is a federal agency which oversees the state agencies, primarily to ensure that dead beats don't change states and avoid paying up.

And a dead is a dead beat if they aren't paying up regardless of what the custodial parent is doing. That doesn't mean the custodial parent can't be in the wrong to, b/c obviously you are correct and many custodial parents are pieces of shit who play games using the child as a weapon; but that doesn't negate the non custodials responsibility to pay child support.

This is why, for example, a non custodial can't use the excuse of no visitation to not pay child support. Even if mom (using stereotypes) refuses the follow the visitation plan and won't let dad (again using stereotypes) see the kid , dad better keep his child support payments up because the court doesn't take that excuse. They are two separate issues.

 

[syrenn]

agreed, some women are court ordered to pay child support..... and just lie men they don't.

Sad to say this poor kid may have a dead beat dad...along with a dead beat mother.

A higher percentage of women who are ordered to pay child support don't pay then men .

The difference is there are 100 men paying for every 1 woman so there are more men who don't pay.

The term dead beat dad is a joke.

As far as I know, only the custodial parent receives the child support, so the bias in the courts to give custody to mothers is still pretty obvious with your numbers.

unless the woman is a total loser sank.... but that should also say something about the father too.... he fucked her.