Kansas wants sperm donor to pay child support - WTF???

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/02/sperm-donor-child-support/1803725/

A U.S. man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple after answering an online ad is fighting efforts by Kansas state authorities to suddenly force him to pay child support for the now 3-year-old girl, arguing that he and the women signed an agreement waiving all of his parental rights.

The case hinges on the fact that no doctors were used for the artificial insemination. The state argues that because William Marotta didn't work through a clinic or doctor, as required by state law, he can be held responsible for about $6,000 that the child's biological mother received through public assistance — as well as future child support.

...

Court records show that Marotta, Schreiner and Bauer signed an agreement in March 2009, with the women agreeing to "hold him harmless" financially. The agreement also said the child's birth certificate would not list a father.

...

-t

 

[Kotin]

government interfering with private contracts?? cannot say I am surprised?? isn't that one of their main functions?

 

[torchbearer]

um, why are people getting pregnant if they can't afford the child?
$6000 was stolen from the neighbors to give the to the lesbian couple.
the state is going after the sperm donor instead of them. that is fucked up.

 

[klamath]

It is his kid. If he didn't want it to happen don't donate to a infertle relationship. Can't feel sorry for him.

 

[dannno]

It is his kid. If he didn't want it to happen don't donate to a infertle relationship. Can't feel sorry for him.

No, if he didn't want it to happen he should have made an agreement and signed a contract with the couple..

OH wait..

 

[klamath]

No, if he didn't want it to happen he should have made an agreement and signed a contract with the couple..

OH wait..

Sorry it is his biological kid. It is not the biological kid of the gay lover... Don't donate sperm to the creation of a child if you don't want to support it.

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Sorry it is his biological kid. It is not the biological kid of the gay lover... Don't donate sperm to the creation of a child if you don't want to support it.

Well that would put every sperm bank in the country out of business instantly.

So how much should a infertile couple or a couple where there are known genetic diseases they don't want to pass to the offspring pay a sperm donor, knowing that the sperm donor will have to support the kid if they ever break up? Should there be insurance like that?

How about a blood donor? If someone donates a pint and later the recipient lands in the hospital, should the donor be liable for their medical bills because the recipient is partially made of of their biological matter?

-t

 

[Pisces]

Contracts are not the answer to everything. Children aren't merchandise.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Contracts are not the answer to everything. Children aren't merchandise.

+Rep

 

[klamath]

Contracts are not the answer to everything. Children aren't merchandise.

Right. Your contract to your child is a lot higher that a stupid piece of paper signed by the susposed "responsible" adults.

 

[jkob]

You guys are ridiculous, the guy signed away his parental rights and is not responsible for this child, are people that put there children up for adoption still responsible for their children? Blame Kansas for being so backwards only allowing for one parent of the couple to be on the birth certificate.

 

[madengr]

Wonder what would happen if the two woman were married, then got a divorce? Not that it's recognized in KS. Would both of the woman be liable for child support.

 

[satchelmcqueen]

how can you say this? dont believe in contracts?

It is his kid. If he didn't want it to happen don't donate to a infertle relationship. Can't feel sorry for him.

 

[JK/SEA]

this SHOULD kill the sperm donor industry. Emphasis on SHOULD.

 

[dillo]

Contracts are not the answer to everything. Children aren't merchandise.

They are in the case of couples that cant conventionally conceive them

 

[jmdrake]

um, why are people getting pregnant if they can't afford the child?
$6000 was stolen from the neighbors to give the to the lesbian couple.
the state is going after the sperm donor instead of them. that is fucked up.

And in this case it's not even "the condom broke".

 

[jmdrake]

this SHOULD kill the sperm donor industry. Emphasis on SHOULD.

Would the problem have come up if they had gone to a sperm bank? Aren't those records kept anonymous?

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

this SHOULD kill the sperm donor industry. Emphasis on SHOULD.

should a woman that puts their child up for adoption be hit with child support if the adoptive parents ever go on welfare?

That's one hell of a good argument for getting an abortion!

should we kill the adoption business?

-t

 

[torchbearer]

And in this case it's not even "the condom broke".

right, the pregnancy was intentional by design.
they brought a kid into this world intentionally without the funds to care for the child themselves. so they have burdened their neighbors with the extra cost of their decision. on top of that, the government is going after the guy who responded to an ad that requested sperm. sounded like a trade agreement was made. what the women did with his sperm after that point is not his liability.