Sperm donor to lesbian couple ordered to pay child support

[JustTheFacts]

If the state is the kind benovolent benefactor it claims to be, they would give the child to its father.

The state has, in writing, a statement that the father does not want the child.

The state does not have custody of the child so they can't "give" him to the father in either case.

He would have to sue the custodial parent in court and convince a judge.

Unless of course the state took action and took the kid away from the custodial parent. An action that states are loathe to take, no matter how bad the parent.

 

[koshergrl]

If the state is the kind benovolent benefactor it claims to be, they would give the child to its father.

The state has, in writing, a statement that the father does not want the child.

That doesn't matter. Lots of dads don't want their kids. It doesn't preclude them from paying support.

Courts reject parental agreements where one parent doesn't have to pay child support, regardless of whether or not the other parent agrees.

Yet another instance of government interference in our personal lives screwing us over. The adamant insistance by the state that fathers can't just opt out is a direct result of so many single parent households going on welfare. The states finally said "enough" and determined that parents don't have the right to deny their children support. PARTICULARLY if they are going to seek government support for their children.

 

[Ravi]

If people were allowed to learn from their mistakes, instead of the government subsidizing every really bad decision that can be made, from drug use to promiscuity to outright criminal activity, then we'd be in a much better place.

But somewhere along the line, Americans became more committed to obtaining government cheese than they are to moving up in the world and being self sufficient.

Yep, that darn baby should have thought about things before she borned herself.

 

[koshergrl]

"We decided that daddy doesn't have to support this child; now give us welfare."

 

[JustTheFacts]

If people were allowed to learn from their mistakes, instead of the government subsidizing every really bad decision that can be made, from drug use to promiscuity to outright criminal activity, then we'd be in a much better place.

But somewhere along the line, Americans became more committed to obtaining government cheese than they are to moving up in the world and being self sufficient.

This is of course true. As I said,if the custodial parent wouldn't have went on welfare this guy would never have been pursued for child support. The custodial parent had given up claim to that (not really because you can't sign away your child support like that , but that's another argument) but the moment the state became an interested party,all bets were off.

but, the underlying fact is IF the state is helping support you then yes the state has a right to tell you how to live your life.

I compare it to having a grown child that you are still helping support. Do you just give that child money and let them go about their merry way? Nope,you expect certain behaviors if you're still being a parent to a supposedly grown child.

 

[koshergrl]

If people were allowed to learn from their mistakes, instead of the government subsidizing every really bad decision that can be made, from drug use to promiscuity to outright criminal activity, then we'd be in a much better place.

But somewhere along the line, Americans became more committed to obtaining government cheese than they are to moving up in the world and being self sufficient.

Yep, that darn baby should have thought about things before she borned herself.

Perfect example of how the welfare state creates stupidity.

The state is seeking support for this child. The PARENTS are attempting to shirk their duty, based on an agreement that isn't recognized by the courts.

The baby has a right to support. And if her parent is on welfare, the state is going to do it's best to see that she gets it.

Yet another example of how much progressives care about children.

 

[Si modo]

If people were allowed to learn from their mistakes, instead of the government subsidizing every really bad decision that can be made, from drug use to promiscuity to outright criminal activity, then we'd be in a much better place.

But somewhere along the line, Americans became more committed to obtaining government cheese than they are to moving up in the world and being self sufficient.

Yep, that darn baby should have thought about things before she borned herself.

Perfect example of how the welfare state creates stupidity.

The state is seeking support for this child. The PARENTS are attempting to shirk their duty, based on an agreement that isn't recognized by the courts.

The baby has a right to support. And if her parent is on welfare, the state is going to do it's best to see that she gets it.

Yet another example of how much progressives care about children.

What agreement between the parents isn't recognized by the courts?

 

[JustTheFacts]

If people were allowed to learn from their mistakes, instead of the government subsidizing every really bad decision that can be made, from drug use to promiscuity to outright criminal activity, then we'd be in a much better place.

But somewhere along the line, Americans became more committed to obtaining government cheese than they are to moving up in the world and being self sufficient.

Yep, that darn baby should have thought about things before she borned herself.

who said that? LOL

That would in fact be the argument the state makes concerning child support.

As far as the state is concerned, child support is money owed to the CHILD, not the custodial parent ,thus the custodial parent has no right to sign away collecting any child support, and obviously the child can't agree to no child support, and so the state generally will not let a non custodial parent sign away their child support obligation.

And in the case of the custodial parent going on welfare, then the state says okay well you should be collecting this and that counts as income for welfare benefits so when it does get collected you have to pay back the difference to welfare.

Sometimes idiots get caught in the crack like this guy just did.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Yep, that darn baby should have thought about things before she borned herself.

Perfect example of how the welfare state creates stupidity.

The state is seeking support for this child. The PARENTS are attempting to shirk their duty, based on an agreement that isn't recognized by the courts.

The baby has a right to support. And if her parent is on welfare, the state is going to do it's best to see that she gets it.

Yet another example of how much progressives care about children.

What agreement between the parents isn't recognized by the courts?

read my response directly below this post of yours.

 

[jillian]

If the state is the kind benovolent benefactor it claims to be, they would give the child to its father.

The state has, in writing, a statement that the father does not want the child.

That doesn't matter. Lots of dads don't want their kids. It doesn't preclude them from paying support.

Courts reject parental agreements where one parent doesn't have to pay child support, regardless of whether or not the other parent agrees.

Yet another instance of government interference in our personal lives screwing us over. The adamant insistance by the state that fathers can't just opt out is a direct result of so many single parent households going on welfare. The states finally said "enough" and determined that parents don't have the right to deny their children support. PARTICULARLY if they are going to seek government support for their children.

government interference? you're worried about government interference in getting support for kids that you want government to force people to carry? you going to stick with that answer, allie?

 

[koshergrl]

Yep, that darn baby should have thought about things before she borned herself.

Perfect example of how the welfare state creates stupidity.

The state is seeking support for this child. The PARENTS are attempting to shirk their duty, based on an agreement that isn't recognized by the courts.

The baby has a right to support. And if her parent is on welfare, the state is going to do it's best to see that she gets it.

Yet another example of how much progressives care about children.

What agreement between the parents isn't recognized by the courts?

The agreement that the guy who fathered the baby has no responsibility for the child.

 

[JustTheFacts]

The state has, in writing, a statement that the father does not want the child.

That doesn't matter. Lots of dads don't want their kids. It doesn't preclude them from paying support.

Courts reject parental agreements where one parent doesn't have to pay child support, regardless of whether or not the other parent agrees.

Yet another instance of government interference in our personal lives screwing us over. The adamant insistance by the state that fathers can't just opt out is a direct result of so many single parent households going on welfare. The states finally said "enough" and determined that parents don't have the right to deny their children support. PARTICULARLY if they are going to seek government support for their children.

government interference? you're worried about government interference in getting support for kids that you want government to force people to carry? you going to stick with that answer, allie?

abortion has NOTHING to do with this thread, please keep it that way.

 

[Si modo]

Perfect example of how the welfare state creates stupidity.

The state is seeking support for this child. The PARENTS are attempting to shirk their duty, based on an agreement that isn't recognized by the courts.

The baby has a right to support. And if her parent is on welfare, the state is going to do it's best to see that she gets it.

Yet another example of how much progressives care about children.

What agreement between the parents isn't recognized by the courts?

read my response directly below this post of yours.

Much appreciated, but I'd like to know what agreement between the parents KG thinks isn't recognized by the courts.

 

[AsheedMidrarwz]

Their contract became invalid the moment welfare became an issue.

Every state in the country will try to collect child support and apply towards reimbursement of welfare.

Now, that being said I think it's pretty shitty that in this circumstance the state would go after the sperm donor; but he's not entirely blameless since he didn't utilize the system that is in place to protect him.

Hint, a contract was not that system.

It's obvious by this that donating your sperm is more than than a 3-minute event.

Just further convinces me that most people in this country are clinically retarded and chronically make wrong choices.

Maybe Obama has it right and Americans do need someone telling them what to do every minute of every day.

I agree. The majority of the Americans are ignorant, uninformed, and indoctrinated.

 

[jillian]

Perfect example of how the welfare state creates stupidity.

The state is seeking support for this child. The PARENTS are attempting to shirk their duty, based on an agreement that isn't recognized by the courts.

The baby has a right to support. And if her parent is on welfare, the state is going to do it's best to see that she gets it.

Yet another example of how much progressives care about children.

What agreement between the parents isn't recognized by the courts?

The agreement that the guy who fathered the baby has no responsibility for the child.

was it in writing?
is such an agreement against public policy?
can a parent waive child support? (which is for the benefit of the child, not the parent).

 

[Ravi]

If people were allowed to learn from their mistakes, instead of the government subsidizing every really bad decision that can be made, from drug use to promiscuity to outright criminal activity, then we'd be in a much better place.

But somewhere along the line, Americans became more committed to obtaining government cheese than they are to moving up in the world and being self sufficient.

Yep, that darn baby should have thought about things before she borned herself.

who said that? LOL

That would in fact be the argument the state makes concerning child support.

As far as the state is concerned, child support is money owed to the CHILD, not the custodial parent ,thus the custodial parent has no right to sign away collecting any child support, and obviously the child can't agree to no child support, and so the state generally will not let a non custodial parent sign away their child support obligation.

And in the case of the custodial parent going on welfare, then the state says okay well you should be collecting this and that counts as income for welfare benefits so when it does get collected you have to pay back the difference to welfare.

Sometimes idiots get caught in the crack like this guy just did.

I agree with you. My post was in response to kgrill's stupidity.

 

[jillian]

That doesn't matter. Lots of dads don't want their kids. It doesn't preclude them from paying support.

Courts reject parental agreements where one parent doesn't have to pay child support, regardless of whether or not the other parent agrees.

Yet another instance of government interference in our personal lives screwing us over. The adamant insistance by the state that fathers can't just opt out is a direct result of so many single parent households going on welfare. The states finally said "enough" and determined that parents don't have the right to deny their children support. PARTICULARLY if they are going to seek government support for their children.

government interference? you're worried about government interference in getting support for kids that you want government to force people to carry? you going to stick with that answer, allie?

abortion has NOTHING to do with this thread, please keep it that way.

have they given you moderator status?

it has everything to do with allie and the concept of government interference. and if you knew the board.and the people here, you'd know allie's standard rants.

if you don't want to respond, don't.

 

[koshergrl]

The state has, in writing, a statement that the father does not want the child.

That doesn't matter. Lots of dads don't want their kids. It doesn't preclude them from paying support.

Courts reject parental agreements where one parent doesn't have to pay child support, regardless of whether or not the other parent agrees.

Yet another instance of government interference in our personal lives screwing us over. The adamant insistance by the state that fathers can't just opt out is a direct result of so many single parent households going on welfare. The states finally said "enough" and determined that parents don't have the right to deny their children support. PARTICULARLY if they are going to seek government support for their children.

government interference? you're worried about government interference in getting support for kids that you want government to force people to carry? you going to stick with that answer, allie?

Well, I might if I had actually said anything like that, jillie.

This isn't a child that anyone was forced to bear. This was a carefully planned child by a progressive, who saw fit to have a child with no regard to that child's well being, or to the law as it would apply to that child in the future.

Another example of depraved individuals allowing children to be sacrificed to an abhorrent lifestyle.

 

[JustTheFacts]

What agreement between the parents isn't recognized by the courts?

read my response directly below this post of yours.

Much appreciated, but I'd like to know what agreement between the parents KG thinks isn't recognized by the courts.

And I answered that. States don't recognize the right of a custodial parent to say no thanks to child support because the states don't recognize that the custodial parent has a right to decline child support.The CHILD is the person in standing and the state has decided that a child ALWAYS deserves support from both parents.

I'm sure you're not saying that is a bad thing in general ?

Look at this way.

Suppose KG and I had a kid and then I didn't want to pay child support (something I would NEVER consider)

KG would have as much standing to agree to me not paying child support as you would if you came in off the street as a friend and said "your honor I don't believe Facts should have to pay child support"

Neither one would sway the court and I'd still have to pay child support.

 

[Si modo]

Perfect example of how the welfare state creates stupidity.

The state is seeking support for this child. The PARENTS are attempting to shirk their duty, based on an agreement that isn't recognized by the courts.

The baby has a right to support. And if her parent is on welfare, the state is going to do it's best to see that she gets it.

Yet another example of how much progressives care about children.

What agreement between the parents isn't recognized by the courts?

The agreement that the guy who fathered the baby has no responsibility for the child.

And, why do you think that contract between those two persons is not recognized by the courts?

FYI, there are four elements that must exist for a contract to be valid:

Offer
Acceptance
Intentions (wrt legal relations)
Consideration​

What element do you believe is absent in that contract between the donor and the turkey baster user?