Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
what, if anything, does that have to do with this situation?
Whoever gave permission for her to adopt in the first place is an idiot. She's obviously dumber than a retarded goose. Parents who are fit do not advertise on Craig's List for sperm donors.
Yes, all three of them are stupid.
What does that have to do with the question of the thread , which is did the state act correctly?
Also . her being stupid has zero to do with her being gay. The two traits are not intertwined.
the parties broke up. the custodial parent sought public assistance. the government had every right to seek support from the biological parent.
if it were a man and woman who weren't married, and the woman had a child that wasn't the biological child of the man she was living with, would that man be charged with support if he and the woman broke up?
the answer's no, ....
why do you have an issue with men paying child support?
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.
if it were a man and woman who weren't married, and the woman had a child that wasn't the biological child of the man she was living with, would that man be charged with support if he and the woman broke up?
the answer's no, ....
That's a different situation then the case here, because the male in your example had not adopted the child. In this case the other mother did adopt the child and had assumed parental responsibility.
If we were to reword it slightly you would have...
if it were a man and woman who weren't married, and the woman had a child that wasn't the biological child of the man she was living with and the man adopted the child, would that man be charged with support if he and the woman broke up?
In that case, which now mimics the situation here, the answer would be - "Yes".
>>>>
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.
That's a different situation then the case here, because the male in your example had not adopted the child. In this case the other mother did adopt the child and had assumed parental responsibility.
If we were to reword it slightly you would have...
if it were a man and woman who weren't married, and the woman had a child that wasn't the biological child of the man she was living with and the man adopted the child, would that man be charged with support if he and the woman broke up?
In that case, which now mimics the situation here, the answer would be - "Yes".
>>>>
no she did NOT adopt the child as far as the state is concerned . Why don't you get that?
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)
No different than if it were a man and a woman and they didn't get an official adoption.
Very different though if they had an adoption.
>>>>
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.
That's true, but that's not a concern here. The concern here are these two miscreants who are not fit to adopt children.
One of them did not adopt the child... she went the baster baby rout..
If gays and lesbians want the same treatment as everyone else... then the other lesbian should be responsible for the child.... not the sperm donor.
However.. since this was not a legal sperm donation through a medical site....its being treated the same way as if some man got her pregnant.
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.
Here is a link that states the mother adopted 8 children as a single parent while living as a partner with the lesbian. I'd like to know the name of the class idiot with the state who allowed this to happen.
Sperm donor ordered to pay child support to lesbian couple despite him giving up rights to the child | Mail Online
Your own article said that the couple had adopted the children together, therefore she was not a single parent. They were both adoptive parents. While I dislike the fact that parents breakup while children are still dependent on them - it happens. And such breakups are not confined to the homosexual community, it happens a lot in heterosexual couples.
The importance of the story is not "lesbian couple breaks up", the importance of the story is that Kansas is going after a verifiable sperm donor and invalidating the contract that existed as a means of finding someone to pay. The story could be just as easily about a heterosexual couple where the state determined the child in question was the product of sperm donation.
>>>>
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.
One of them did not adopt the child... she went the baster baby rout..
If gays and lesbians want the same treatment as everyone else... then the other lesbian should be responsible for the child.... not the sperm donor.
However.. since this was not a legal sperm donation through a medical site....its being treated the same way as if some man got her pregnant.
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.
if it were a man and woman who weren't married, and the woman had a child that wasn't the biological child of the man she was living with, would that man be charged with support if he and the woman broke up?
the answer's no, ....
That's a different situation then the case here, because the male in your example had not adopted the child. In this case the other mother did adopt the child and had assumed parental responsibility.
If we were to reword it slightly you would have...
In that case, which now mimics the situation here, the answer would be - "Yes".if it were a man and woman who weren't married, and the woman had a child that wasn't the biological child of the man she was living with and the man adopted the child, would that man be charged with support if he and the woman broke up?
>>>>
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.
>>>>
if it were a man and woman who weren't married, and the woman had a child that wasn't the biological child of the man she was living with, would that man be charged with support if he and the woman broke up?
the answer's no, ....
That's a different situation then the case here, because the male in your example had not adopted the child. In this case the other mother did adopt the child and had assumed parental responsibility.
If we were to reword it slightly you would have...
In that case, which now mimics the situation here, the answer would be - "Yes".if it were a man and woman who weren't married, and the woman had a child that wasn't the biological child of the man she was living with and the man adopted the child, would that man be charged with support if he and the woman broke up?
>>>>
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.
This woman was allowed to adopt 8 children as a single parent. Now she has hooked up with a guy. She's obviously ill and has no business raising children.
Anyone with a shred of common sense can tell this single mom is an idiot and has no business adopting children to raise. Blah, blah, blah, yourself. Idiot.
That's a different situation then the case here, because the male in your example had not adopted the child. In this case the other mother did adopt the child and had assumed parental responsibility.
If we were to reword it slightly you would have...
In that case, which now mimics the situation here, the answer would be - "Yes".if it were a man and woman who weren't married, and the woman had a child that wasn't the biological child of the man she was living with and the man adopted the child, would that man be charged with support if he and the woman broke up?
>>>>
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?
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.
Anyone with a shred of common sense can tell this single mom is an idiot and has no business adopting children to raise. Blah, blah, blah, yourself. Idiot.
Anyone with that same shred of common sense understand that you make that woman look like Einstein.
no she did NOT adopt the child as far as the state is concerned . Why don't you get that?
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)No different than if it were a man and a woman and they didn't get an official adoption.
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.
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.
And the ONLY reason the state is making the claim that the contract is invalid is because the couple and the donor didn't have a physician to the implantation. If it had been done by a physician then the state would have validated the contract.
>>>>
