E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA Kansas man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple three years ago is fighting the state’s demand that he pay child support.
The two women raising the 3-year-old girl say they support the man, who responded to an ad they posted on the Craigslist website in 2009, the Topeka Capital-Journal reported.
The issue of child support arose when the two women broke up, and the couple applied for state services. Workers at the Kansas Department for Children and Families demanded the donor’s name and then filed a child-support claim against him, the newspaper said.
Angela Bauer, one of the mothers, told the Capital-Journal that she and her former partner, Jennifer Schreiner, support the donor, William Marotta, “in whatever action he wants to go forward with” to fight the state's demand.
"This was a wonderful opportunity with a guy with an admirable, giving character who wanted nothing more than to help us have a child," the newspaper quoted Bauer, 40, as saying. "I feel like the state of Kansas has made a mess out of the situation."
When Bauer and Schreiner, the 34-year-old birth mother, reached a deal with Marotta that did not include any payment for his sperm donation, he signed a written agreement that relinquished all parental rights and held him harmless “for any child support payments demanded of him by any other person or entity, public or private ... regardless of the circumstances or said demand,” it said.
The state argued in court papers that because the insemination wasn’t performed by a licensed physician, the contract was null and void.
When the two women split in 2010, they had eight children, including some they adopted, whom they now co-parent.
Marotta, a 43-year-old mechanic, was dragged into the dispute when the couple filed for state assistance. The state insisted that they reveal the donor’s identity, saying that if they refused to do so, their daughter would no longer be eligible for health care coverage. The women reluctantly complied, the Capital-Journal reported.
The girl’s birth certificate does not include her biological father’s name, and the Capital-Journal said that he had no contact with the girl, other than receiving occasional email updates from Bauer. Both women adopted the girl, although they had to file for adoption separately because the state does not recognize same-sex unions, the newspaper said. This means that the state also cannot collect child support from same-sex parents.
"More and more gays and lesbians are adopting and reproducing, and this, to me, is a step backward," said Bauer, who formerly supported the family financially but is no longer able to work due to a "serious illness." "I think a lot of progressive movement is happening currently in the world as far as gays and lesbians go. Maybe this is Kansas' stand against some of that."
The Capital-Journal could not reach Marotta for comment and the Kansas Department for Children and Families declined to discuss the case, citing privacy laws.
This isn’t the first time states have demanded child support from sperm donors. But in most of those cases, the sperm donor was known to the birth family – usually a man who was friendly with a lesbian couple and who agreed to help them out.
Court rulings vary
Sperm donors who donate through a sperm bank are typically protected by state parenting shield laws. But in less straight-forward cases, courts have differed on whether the men should pay up.
A Massachusetts court ruled this year that a Nigerian immigrant had to pay child support for twins conceived through artificial insemination a year after he and his wife had separated, the Patriot Ledger reported.
And In Vermont, a man who donated sperm to a female friend was required to pay child support because he maintained a relationship with the children.
Explained one of the mothers to The Associated Press in 2007: "Part of the decision came down because he was so involved with them. It wasn't that he went to the (sperm) bank and that was it. They called him Papa."
In New York, a married doctor agreed to donate sperm to a young resident and her partner in the late 1980s, only to be asked 18 years later for child support, the New York Post reported.
His undoing was sending money and cards to the child, which he would sign, “Dad” or “Daddy.” The biological father’s name was also on the birth certificate.
But in Washington state, the Court of Appeals ruled in 2004 that a donor can’t be required to pay child support unless he and the mother have signed an explicit contract.
And in Texas, an appeals court ruled in favor of a former policeman who donated sperm to a woman he had been formerly connected with. He had paid thousands of dollars in child support for twins until the court ruled in his favor.
When the lawsuit was filed in 2008, the man told McClatchy: "I was totally blown away. I was already married and had moved on with my life."
NBC's Isolde Raftery and The Associated Press contributed reporting.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Officers' 'gut feeling' tracks down missing LA toddler
- Homicides plummet in NYC, leap in Chicago
- Snowstorm disrupts hundreds of Northeast flights
- Video: High profits seen in 'green rush' for legal marijuana
- At 1989 parole hearing, firefighter shooter wondered if he might kill
Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Kansas Department for Children and Families sounds like they use the same book that Westboro Baptist Church terrorist group uses for their important decisions.
I have absolutely nothing against gay couples, but this should make it CRYSTAL clear that no man should donate sperm directly to a couple unless they want to be part of the child's life, and it is in writing. If you don't want the child yourself, DON'T DO IT! Make them find some other sucker, or go to a licensed sperm bank.
this is exactly the double standards that is ruining this country ! first the lgbt's demand equal and fair rights , OK then they demand the right to marry, OK and when things don't work out to there lifestyle they now demand someone else PAY for there problem !
BE CARFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR, YOU JUST MIGHT GET IT !
Kevin - with regards to the outcome what is the difference between a licensed sperm bank and a private donation?
mike - the lesbian couple is not demanding the father pays, in fact they support him in his fight against the state. If I understand it right they take responsibility but it is the state that is pulling the biological father in. If the kid were adopted would they then pull the biological father in for support?
Mike - if they had equal and fair rights, the state would demand child support from one of the two mothers, not the sperm donor. If it were a heterosexual couple that used a sperm donor to conceive, the state would be going after whichever parent did not have custody of the child, not the sperm donor.
In cased you missed it , Mike, the former couple is in this guy's corner. It is the STATE that is going after him. That is just all kinds of wrong! Leave the gays alone, man. They deserve the same rights as the rest of us.
Millions of men donate sperm every hour of the day, are not busted. What makes this guy special?
Put the kid to work on the farm. He should be caught up by age eighteen.
Sperm donor is no more responsible for child support than a womon who donates her eggs... Kans-azz should back off. They had no right to force the women to reveal the donor's name (privacy) and they totally violated the written consent agreement between the donor and the women.
Lesson for anyone being a sperm donor, do not give them your real name. And if the women had half a brain she would have told the Kansas people that it was a one night stand and she had no idea who the sperm donor was. It states that there was no name on the birth certificate so that should have been a easy one to avoid telling them.
This is the most @!$%#ED UP thing I have ever heard of! Where the hell is our country headed? Directly into the TOILET!!!
THe women are not the ones seeking anything from the man. Its the state itself making a horrible decision. This man should not be held accountable for this child, especially considering there was some kind of written agreement. But much like the horrible state I now reside in, the commonwealth of VA., once the state goes for something, they ride it out. They will probably make this mans life hell and then charge him court costs for something he should not be fighting.
mike-2598123
Wrong again. Read the article. The gay couple supports the donor's point of view. It is the right wing state of Kansas trying to force him to do so. And Kevin C-752389, the donor did sign an agreement releasing him from any future child support. Again, a right wing state government interfering with the individual's rights because his version of freedom doesn't match their religious point of view.
Well, the ignoble State of Kansas has just cast an icy cloud onto the minds of anyone who has thought about performing an act of Christian Charity to any couple who want to have a child...
Kansas Government sounds like an anti-Christian Nazi organization to me !
the point being missed here , lesbien couple solicits on craiglist for sperm doner , lesbien couple then must have listed him as the father on the birth certificate, then lesbien couple splits up only 2 years later and applies for welfare . yep that gay marriage worked out great .
Its a red state what did you all expect?
Don't bother arguing with mike. He clearly has his own agenda.
Dumbass comment. I guess 'traditional marriages' are always perfect eh?
guardian2z, it clearly states in the article that no father is listed on the birth certificate. Kansas also does not recognize same sex marriage.
The state is absolutely wrong to do this. This man has no relationship with the child. He simply answered an ad and helped out a lesbian couple by donating sperm. He has in no way maintained any contact or relationship with the lesbian couple or the child and should not be forced to pay support. If he were involved in the child's life it would be a different matter, but in this case he should not be forced to support the kid.
Guardian2z, where did you read that this couple was married? Not in this article. And in Kansas the state constitution forbids gay marriage. Also the article states that the father's name was not listed on the birth certificate. Reading is fundamental, dude.
Sounds like Kansas in its own stupid way wants to make a guy that was just trying to help responsible for the child because the two women split. In this case both mothers are co-parenting so they should treat it like any other divorce instead of acting stupid.
From what I understand in this article, the woman who has custody of the kids is applying for state aid, most likely meaning foodstamps. Its protocol for those seeking aid as all other means should be exhausted first before applying. Meaning, when the mother fessed up to the man fathering the child, he is responsible for supplying aid to that child first before the state is, so they go after him for child support before she can get state aid. It dosent matter what kind of half-assed "contract" they had written up between them. Had they consulted a lawyer or had this done professionally instead of on the down low, they would have known this beforehand. Im betting thats why the women reached out to Craigslist for a sperm donor instead of going to a reputable clinic for reproductive services. Cutting corners to have your family may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but that man should have seen this coming a mile away. Its the state's best interest to collect from all available resources first to limit the strain on public assistance funds. Or the state can just tax more to cover the aid needed for these shady dealings, Which Im sure would just THRILL everyone in the long run(sarcasm). This has nothing to do with persecution for the gay community, as Im sure there are THOUSANDS of gay couples who have no problem developing their families and supporting them on their own. This is the protocol for most states, if those ladies wanted such a large family(EIGHT KIDS?!?!Jesus who has that many these days?!?! Rabbits?!) then they should have been completely able to care for them independently, without state aid.
If these two women had the child together then break up, then the courts should make both the parents pay for the child support of the kid, not the sperm donor.
If one or both of these women are working, then they need to pay for the child's care imo. This has nothing to do with racism, just common sense. Parents, regardless if they are a gay couple or heterosexual couple, if they break up, then both the parents of the child are responsible for the upbringing of the child they had together and were raising together.
Leave the sperm donor out of this. He only donated the sperm, these women decided to have this child on their own.
Hey, Kansas, join the rest of us who are tuning to the year 2013! Get a clue.
I don't understand. Can't he sign something turning over his parental rights and responsibilities to the other partner (not the one who carried the child)? How does that work with egg donation? Or adoption? Would this be a problem if he had donated to a heterosexual couple? There MUST be some legal way to make him not the parent...
People who bring a child into the world should be held responsible for that child's upbringing. The man who donated his sperm and the woman who bore the child are the child's parents and, as such, they are both obliged to support that child regardless of any 'arrangement' or 'agreement' that they may have forged between them.
Creating a child is not a game, the child should not be viewed as a friendly gift to be handed around at will, and the law should require parents to support the children they create. Why should this NOT be so?
Sorry, but you are wrong. Sperm donors are not fathers, they are just donors. Biology has nothing to do with being a parent.
Kevin
if i donate a dollar to the red cross, am i now responsible for the red cross, am i now going to have to be a volunteer, am i going to have to be forced to hold the red cross's hand.
if i DONATE sperm, im not giving my life and time to the outcome, its done so someone that cant obtain sperm has the ability to now create their own child.
Bmette- So if I had donated eggs to an infertile couple I should be on the hook for supporting that egg for the next 18 years?
How about the other way around. If the sperm donor becomes elderly and infirm can the nursing home go after his donated sperm to help pay his nursing home costs?
Rented gametes? Can Daddies be whores? Oh my...I'd like to donate one sperm for each lost life in Chicago...is that enough?
It's these little decision like this that make me question the sanity of the people there.
"I like your Chist, but yours action is nothing like your Chris" fit best here.
If you're gonna pop out several kids you had damn well better be sure you can support them yourself.
this is what happens when a state goes so rightwing they think that doing really dumb sh!t like is appropriate and rational. y
Of their eight children, some were adopted. Read the article fully. This 3-year-old was conceived by donor insemination. In the past, donors have been anonymous. For whatever reason, this guy sent cards signed "Dad" and "Daddy". While donating sperm is not a parental issue, it is merely a donating issue. The problem in this case is the man that donated, while stating he wanted not to be involved, became involved with the cards and letters. He should have considered his actions before he wrote to the child.
I have children by donor insemination (3). My ex-husband and I wanted children and my ex is sterile. After our divorce I never went to the state for financial aid and the topic of my children's conception came up while my oldest was studying genetics (eye color was the issue). My ex has no contact with our kids, based on his choice. He still pays child support and will pay part of their college expenses as well. My ex is listed on our kids birth certificates - not a donor and it's not blank. They have a father (in my case) whether or not he chooses to be involved in their lives.
This guy is toast though it shouldn't have been the case. Donors (egg and sperm) are remarkable people that assist others in having the children they want to have. Whether the relationship lasts after the donation is another discussion....the tragedy of marital breakup has nothing to do with donor or egg insemination. It's just the tragedy of a marriage not working.
Margo, "For whatever reason, this guy sent cards signed "Dad" and "Daddy"." That was the New York Doctor. Read the story again. The article was citing other examples of donors being charged child support.
So I guess that means if a couple in Kansas, married or unmarried, gay or straight, chooses to have a child by insemination from sperm from a family friend and that couple eventually splits up, the sperm donor is on the hook for child support. I am a staunch conservative, which I am proud of - I also used to live in Kansas, but I am not proud of that fact anymore. I don't care who you are, wrong is wrong. This ruling is pure B.S.
Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore. Oh crap, my bad, we're still there. Damn.
This definitely has to be total bullsh!t. I can't see this would have a leg to stand on in an appeal.
Pippo,
Trust me it has more legs then you think. Family courts in this country today are the closest thing you can get to a dictatorship. Those judges have next to limitless power and zero accountability. I've known too many guys who ended up paying child support for 18 years on the kid the wife or girlfriend had with some other guy she was cheating on him with just because she put his name on the birth certificate.
They say: "It's about the children". That's crap. These courts don't give a damn about the children. It's all about the money. Either making sure the State itself doesn't pay (as this case) or extorting the guy so his spendthrift ex can go blow it on herself more then on any child.
Cniht: Anymore women cannot put anyone's name on the birth certificate, the father must sign for his name to be on the birth certificate. If he's not there for the birth, he can do it at a later date - but he must go to vital records to do it. It's been that way for at least 15 years (my oldest son is 15 years old, his dad is not listed on his birth certificate because he wasn't there for the birth, and never added his name to the birth certificate). Though, I suppose some states may have been later in catching on to that.
Hey, Mike has a reading disability--comprehension.
As for the state, this can be bad news for all donors. The donor pool will dry up if government goes after donors when relationships sour. At least the lesbian couple is doing the honorable thing in defending the donor. FYI, gay male couples sometimes use surrogate mothers who volunteer for the service. But I have heard several horror stories of lesbian couples having a child, later breaking up, and fighting over the child. Sad.
Summer,
Explain that to a co-worker who protested his signature in family court to the judge and he still got sacked with support. Your 'understanding' is nice and all but once you get in front of that judge they do a hell of a lot of things they 'are not' suppose to. And no one holds them, or can hold them, accountable. His case is even more exceptional because he's white as snow and the child was black as night (mother was also white). There was no way he was the father, and the woman knew the true father of the child. The Judge didn't care. She had the deepest pockets in front of her and she was going to tap it.
Well, in that case, it could also be did he raise the child as if he were the father for a period of time before the split? If so, that can influence the judges decisions. Of course, there are also just some @!$%#ty judges out there.
All i was saying is that women can't just add a man's name to the birth certificate anymore. I know that from more than just my own personal experience, but from working in ob/gyn during rotations.
What an abomination!
So the state stoops to blackmail, forcing the women to reveal the donor's name or else no benefits for the daughter. Hmmm, so much for considering the welfare of the child. This could open up a wild opportunity for women who became impregnated through donors to sue for child support, even through legal means. States could adopt this type of payment through legislative wrangling to save tax dollars for other nonsense agendas.
I know a women who was paying child support to the tune of $600.00 a month to her ex. He relinquished the children to her a year ago but the court date to stop the support is over a year out. Even though she takes care of her children, her ex remarried to a woman with children. Until her day in court, this mother still pays her ex the same amount each month and he has nothing to do with his children...he just collects and spends the money. There is no way she could recoup that already paid either.
HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Ok ok ok ok ....Wha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Moral to the story guys, stop donated your sh!t to sperm banks and you won't become a bank. And by the way, ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha!!!
As long as Kansas applies this policy to all sperm donors whether they donate to lesbians or hetero's. Even hetero's can get into trouble with their relationship and one may decide to cut out and not help support the child. then the sperm donor for that couple should also be responsible for child support. It's only fair.
Or we could be real and not require donors of sperm to pay. They have no real relationship to the child.
@Oh_no, while I agree there should not be a difference, if you read the story closely, courts have clearly excluded donors, who use licensed sperm banks. Not one of the exceptions listed above included such a donation, only those, that were direct between the man and the couple.
What I want to know was did the sperm donor make a direct deposit or was a cup and turkey baster involved? lol
Seriously though.. the state of Kansas has just embarrassed themselves. Shame on them.
What's the matter with Kansas?
I cant stop laughing at the article. It boggles my mind that we are here today in this world having to deal with this kind of stuff. Red tape and loop holes are created when you start changing things that shouldnt be changed.
Get child support from the other woman, the one who played the role as the dominant man in the family. :D
These women didn't want food stamps and a check for the kid, they wanted health insurance, big difference. And the only reason the court is doing this is because legally they can't get child support from the 2nd mother. If they changed the law to where they could do that they wouldn't have even asked for the donors name. Can you imagine being that judge? Let's say he did the right thing and made the other mom pay support and then some fundamental christian group found out, they would be out for his job on the legal premise that he broke the law, but really it's because they see it as he's supporting the 'gay agenda'. This may not be the case he may just be an @!$%#, but you can bet your ass had he made that decision my example would have played through.
While I commend them for adopting, which I am surprised two women were allowed in Kansas of all places, 8 kids! The baby factories must stop. We, as a society must start viewing these cases as welfare fraud. Why exactly should I or society for that mater be responsible for stupid decisions by a few. The liberal view of food, housing and healthcare being a "right" is totally flawed. "Access" to food, housing, and healthcare should be a right, but not freely given to idiots. I understand that sometimes people get sick, but child support is a lifetime.
The state should take these kids away form them and hold this man totally blameless considering there were legal documents signed.
Mike:
RE: your post #1.2
Maybe you should read the article and get some help in reading comprehension! The article clearly states that the two women ARE NOT asking the man for child suport. THE STATE of Kansas, Department of Children Services, is demanding the sperm doner pay child support. I am sure you will 'get-it' if you reread the article several times more. Good Luck!
I get that the court couldn't compel the other mother to pay child support, but why wasn't she voluntarily doing so already? Or was she? If she's a dead-beat mom she deserves a load of contempt. If she's paying support why didn't they just say that the child received child support when applying for services?
I wonder if they were trying to scam the system by leaving mom #1s income off the books purposely and causing the inquiry to begin with.
Beyond the legal state stuff, I have to wonder about how the guy found the craigslist ad. "Hmmmm, I think I'll look for 'sperm donor, free'...... I can handle this!"
The unmitigated stupidity of the average left wing zealot never ceases to amaze me. The ignorance of the typical urban bred human is unfathomable. And the Bigotry and Prejudice expressed by the aforementioned left wing is appalling. You people are well and truly disgusting.
You all assume that because this is KANSAS, or a Red State and there is nothing but rednecks, hill billies, rustic rubes, Bible thumpers that live here. That we persecute people of "difference" i.e. queers, dykes, Negros, Chicanos, etc.
Let's explain something here. The laws of the state, {some of which are Federal Requirements going back to the 60's, that pertain to "the AFDC Act" (Democrats controlled both houses and the White House at the time, Yeah, it is a "RED State" thing RIGHT? idiots) } require the FATHER (Sperm Donor) of the Child (and under some DEAD BEAT DAD laws,(TANF Act under Clinton) with penalty of prison for failure to do so) to pay support.
This has nothing to do with what the State or its people wish or want at the moment. The laws are triggered AUTOMATICALLY by certain events. Period. And these laws were set up before this sort of Perversion was "acceptable". So the question is what do we do now? Obviously some laws need to be updated.
But for the here and now, If I were the father, I would sign a contract with the "Surrogate Father" to be reimbursed for any "Child" support I was forced to pay.
In fact that is exactly the case (and a pretty good description on your part).
Sounds like you really are a dumb farm boy and haven't paid attention to the history of Kansas, including its very recent history of anti-gay sharia laws.
In fact, the voters in Salina and Hutchinson just repealed the non-discrimination ordinances which protected sexual orientation, and your state legislature passed a law back in May which allows discrimination against gays.
Ignorant bible-thumping rubes would be an understatement.
Well jeepers Skrekk, would you care to tell me then where the war against slavery began? and why at one point this was known as bleeding Kansas, if you know so much Kansas history. Would you care to point out to the rest of the class where Brown v Board of Education started?
And if you were to read the ordinances of those cities, unless I am mistaken, they placed an undo burden on the Landlord/Property owner. It is not always about civil liberties, sometimes we have to stick up for other people to. "anti-gay sharia laws" only shows your ignorance, last time I checked this was already covered under federal regs.
And I wish you would publish a link to "passed a law back in May which allows discrimination against gays."
But I am all for discriminating against defective humans, such as yourself.
I no longer live on a farm, hence the "Dumb" part. The worst thing I ever did was get a Degree in Mechanical Engineering, move to the City and have to live in and amongst bigoted, myopic, inane morons like you.
Tell me something, why is it OK to violate one person's rights to benefit another?
DumbFarmBoy:
RE: your post #1.58
You are to be congratulated! You more than live up to the moniker you have chosen for yourself. CONGRATULATIONS!
Those ordinances presented the exact same burden as other existing protected classes like race and gender, but for some reason you dumb bigots think it's OK to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
What "federal regs"? Except for hate crimes, sexual orientation isn't a protected class under federal law.
Looks like you're the ignorant one.
OK:
I'll just note that if the issue were one of landlords discriminating on the basis of religious objections to mixed-race couples, such a measure would have easily passed a mere 40 years ago.
To say that Kansas is bigoted, Christofascist and backwards is an understatement.
@ skrekk
Your post proves my point. Why is it OK to violate a persons Freedom of Religion? Is religious freedom less important? I am an Atheist, so it really matters not to me, but I am for all freedoms and if it is OK to violate one freedom, then what freedoms do I really have?
And could you get a more biased link? Do you think they spun it just a little bit?
This is the undo burden, to force a person to compromise their religious principle to accommodate some other principle. Or do you think that is OK?
Would you force the government, if the draft were in place, to make those who are conscientious objectors to violate a religious belief to fight in a war?
Or how about this, your neighbor is a drummer or other loud musician, and his practice schedule conflicts with your sleep schedule. You can't sleep while he practices, but you need sleep. Who gives up what? do you give up sleep so he can make a living as musician, or does he give up his music so you can sleep? Someone is going to lose something.
Something you need to understand about the Constitution. It only guarantees or restricts what the Government can do to a Citizen. It has no bearing on what one Citizen does or does not do to or for another citizen. Before the Government can deny a citizen his life, they must first give them due process, I am under no such burden, if that person presents a clear and eminent threat. (This is why the police [agents for the Government] attempt to arrest a person, rather than shooting them right on the spot)
And don't go into, well this law says this or that law says that. We have many laws that actually violate the Constitution as it was originally written or intended. (Don't get me wrong, I am merely playing Devil's Advocate here) But if a private citizen does not wish to accommodate or employ another citizen, and I believe it is their right to do so if they so wish. Then how is the Government can infringe upon that right? on behalf of another citizen?
And don't get the idea I am advocating discriminating against anyone. I am merely saying that if one person wishes to do so, who am I or anyone else to tell them they can not. At least in the context of a private situation. If this were a publicly traded corporation or other entity (governmental, etc) then all bets are off.
@scrambolo
Spoken Like a true liberal, Change the Subject, Ignore the Facts, and Name Call.
And you refute none of the arguments presented. Not that there were any really, I was merely pointing out that the laws here are some what dated and need review. Of course you failed to truly understand what I actually said, and just went off an emotional knee jerk response. What an idiot. I was indeed making the case that we need to change the rules. I was pointing out that many of the laws we have to abide by here were made by Democrats in Washington a long time ago. Next time, try using a little reading comprehension. That is, try to comprehend (understand, what was written) before replying.
I no longer live on a farm, hence the "Dumb" part. The worst thing I ever did was get a Degree in Mechanical Engineering, move to the City and have to live in and amongst bigoted, myopic, inane morons like you. (see, I can name call too)
People are free to hold whatever bigoted religious views they like but they can't use that as an excuse to violate public accommodation laws, just like they can't use it as an excuse to stone disobedient children to death. Your rights end at the other person's nose. I realize it's a huge disappointment to you bigots and Christofascists that a landlord can no longer refuse to rent to blacks or mixed-race couples.
This cartoon best expresses where nutballs like you are coming from:
http://s1172.beta.photobucket.com/user/dmillerparker/media/glbt-religious-freedom.jpg.html
.
Fortunately the Civil Rights Act and various state & local public accommodation laws disagree with you........at least in the enlightened states of the north, east and west. Bigoted states like Kansas and the southern states are another matter, as they have few if any public accommodation laws.
I understand why the sperm donor doesn't want to support this child, yet I can also understand why the State would want the father to be liable for the support. This lesbian couple had this child yet apparently were not able to support the child without taxpayer money, why should the taxpayer be liable for the decisions these women made?
Read the article again...
... Bauer, who formerly supported the family financially but is no longer able to work due to a "serious illness".
Do you get it now? Things like this (unexpected illnesses, break ups, etc) happen to all families.
The lesbian couple had this child as mother and father. When they split, then the one who does not have custody should be paying the other child support - - the donor is out of the picture.
This is what happens when we go against God's plan -- a mess.
While I can kinda sorta see your point, let's compare and contrast with "ordinarily" adopted children. Does there ever come a day where a child adopted from, say, two teenage parents who voluntarily choose to give up their child to a couple....if that couple divorces, does the state go after the birth parents for child support???? That answer is NO.
Zivo, when me ex can't work his support is still counted against him. That does not alleviate his financial obligation to his kids -- and neither should it in this case.
@Karen...do you see anything in the story above about either of the women not wanting to provide for their children? I don't.
The woman who was the breadwinner is unable to work because of serious illness..and apparently her former partner understands this as they were trying to get assistance (healthcare, etc) for their children together even though they are no longer a couple.
BOTTOM LINE!!!
THE CHILD!!!
That is all the state cares about! The welfare of the child!!! Whatever contractual negotiations occurred between these two women and the man in question doesn't make a difference to the state. There is a CHILD in this world through no fault of his or her own... Therefore the state has an obligation to DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CHILD!!!
All this religion BS doesn't benefit the child! God no longer has manna fall from the sky... At least where I live anyway.
They "didn't go through a licensed physician"... This is code for sex was involved in producing the child! Whatever the case maybe, it is living and breathing and if the man can pay child support then he should pay... PERIOD!!!
The LAW IS THE LAW!!! Ignorance of it is no defense!
If you take the time to find a suitor for the sperm donation then common sense says you should have looked into the laws of the state where you bore and chose to raise the child!!
Irony here is many of you care more about illegals and children starving in the Sudan and Somalia than you do an American child sitting in Kansas! I say, you don't really care about children at all... You only care about making political points... POLITICS ISN'T FEEDING THIS KID OR PUTTING A WARM ROOF OVER HIS OR HER HEAD!!!
Get your behinds out of your toosh for a moment and breath into basic reality!!
Dawg. You pay for it if you care so much. The guy in this is not Responsible for this child, Period. The Lesbians are the only ones who should pay for this.
Millions of men donate sperm every hour of the day, are not busted. What makes this guy special?
square- the couple each legally adopted the child and the father's name was not on the birth certificate, how would this have been handled if the same situation had occurred with a heterosexual couple?
Karen -
This has nothing to do with gods plan, it is simple a double standard and a brainless action on the part of teh state....state abuse.
DAWG -
LEGAL adoption by two people means nothing? Even if the kid was legally adopted by one person [allowed by Kansan law] they would not have gone after the biological father ... see the difference?
Yep. Even if it means ruining a generous mans life. This mans life has only one meaning, now. That meaning is to support the "CHILD" that he donated his sperm to a couple that couldn't have children.
Children may be the future, but this man is the hear and now. Where are his rights?
No, this is what happens when a bigoted state has Jim Crow laws and doesn't treat all its citizens equally under the law.
Your Christian sharia laws are the real problem here, just like they've always been.
The child's parents were taxpayers, too...square dude...and that's the way it's supposed to work...you contribute when you can and then when your child needs help tax dollars provide it.
Why should a sperm donor, who kept it that way, according to his agreement with the couple, be required to do so? Just the right wingers in Kansas depicting their view of freedom upon another.
This 'couple' more than likely screamed 'equal rights' a few years ago, sought out a guy friend to father their child then have since split up. They need to buck it up and together, financially support this child and not count on public assistance to support THEIR child, knowing full well the state would want to go after the 'father' to make him pay support. The couple was wrong to look for food stamps/mediciad in the first place. They can't have it both ways.
When they split, then the one who does not have custody should be paying the other child support - - the donor is out of the picture.
That only applies to the couples that can get married (a man and a woman) in this case. Goes back to common law marriages which is not recognized yet in some of our more backwards states who have all of the right wing nut jobs running their affairs.
Oh yes because 'God's plan' for traditional marriage always go along flawless without any hitches. So I guess you'll ignore the massive amount of failed hetero relationships and point to this couple as proof?
Disgusting concept.
From what I pulled from details provided from the article, everything these people did was shady and suspect. 1) Getting a sperm donor from Craigslist?! Who the hell does that and what man would answer such a request?!! I know not everyone can afford reproductive services from fertility clinics, but there is a reason why they have fees the way they do, they have their bases covered when it comes to their clients and donors. 2) If any court honored a hand written "contract" presented to the courts to wriggle their way out of financial obligations, do you realized what a mess the system would be?!?! Honoring that suspect contract would set precedent, meaning any man could use that as an excuse to con thier way out of child support. NO EXCEPTIONS ARE MADE. I would know, my mother sued my father for child support when she became pregnant with me and he dumped her. Though he was not in my life and had no contact with me, I was still his financial obligation based on the simple fact he fathered me. REGARDLESS of how he felt about it.
Ummmmm......private contracts are honored by the courts every day throughout the country. Our judicial system is built on that concept.
And as the article noted, other states have held harmless other sperm donors who had no involvement in the child's life. That's kind of the basis for sperm donation, regardless of whether it's anonymous. That the donation procedure wasn't handled by a for-profit clinic should be irrelevant to the court.
No it's not. There are home-kits for artificial insemination - and they don't involve sex.
I understand that the man felt like he was doing a good deed.
I understand the couple wanting a child (although after already having seven to care for I think they used poor judgement).
I understand the State wanting to hold a "doner" responsible....we tax payers should not be on the hook.
Unfortunately since the three decided not to make it legal in the eyes of Kansas this guy is screwed.
Had the couple truely wanted to follow the contract they had arrived at they would not have in any circumstance given up the doners name. Period. They knew what was going to happen.
This "doner" was a fool.
SKrekk, I dont doubt private contracts are honored. If both parties agreed on it and the courts find it agreeable, then yeah, those are fine. But thats not the case here. The ladies are asking for financial assistance from the state and the state doesnt find the contract freeing the "sperm donor" from financial obligations to be legal. Therefore, it has no legal standing and the court won't honor it. Nothing about this case was done legally, therefore I personally find it odd the ladies and so-called "sperm donor" want their situation to be recognized now. I'm pretty interested to see how this case will be ruled, considering it will impact child support rulings in millions of cases across the US. Take my mother and father for example. My "father" dated my mother very briefly before she became pregnant. He ceased all contact with her and I had no contact or relationship with him. But that didnt free him from child support! No way Jose! When my mother applied for foodstamps, they asked who the father was and she gave them the info. She got the foodstamps and Medicaid, but the state went after him for child support, even though she personally didnt file for it and he didnt want to pay it. Now you know why that happened right? Because in the eyes of the law, the man who fathered the child, no matter the circumstances, is financially responsible. Period. This will then become a matter of she says/he says to get out of child support. After all, my father could just claim to the courts to be a sperm donor and who can say he isnt right?
The state is just looking for the deepest pocket. My bet is the court will honor the contract, particularly since the donor had no involvement in the child's life.
Sperm donors are generally held harmless and not liable for support.
"Sperm donors are generally held harmless and not liable for support."
On that we can both agree on at least! The wrench in the machine though, really, is how can you prove the man is just a sperm donor? Taking his word for it? Im sure THAT excuse came up quite a few times when a man is explaining to family court why he shouldn't have his wages garnished to pay child support! Lol! Now as for the courts just looking for the deepest pockets to pay for the child, that is another kettle. Google the case of Ronnie Coleman of Arlington, TX. A woman wants to have a baby and contacts a man she knew and asked him to be the sperm donor. He agrees. He donates to a sperm bank and a fertility clinic uses the sperm for successful triplets. All proper channels are followed. she laters sue the man for child support years later. The first round of courts agreed to the child support but a appeals court struck it down based on the man's legal paper trail explicitly freeing him from obligations to any successful children from the procedures. The man is now free from child support because in the eyes of the courts, he truly was just a sperm donor. The difference between these cases? The man clearly proved he was a sperm donor through legal channels. The lesbian couple and their friend cant, its just their word and shady "contract".
The thing is a contract does not legally have to written up by an attorney. Yes, it's best t have it drawn up by an attorney, but it's not required. So, if the contract is considered valid by the court (and that is yet to be determined, I know the State is claiming it's not valid, but we shall see), or if the court otherwise determines that he was simply acting as a sperm donor, then the man should be protected by the same laws in Kansas as any other sperm donor that donated to a sperm bank. In Kansas, the law states that a sperm donor who is not married to the mother is NOT considered the father UNLESS there is a written agreement giving him parental rights/responsibilities.
That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. If the two decided to raise this poor child then the one who left should be paying child support to the one who has the child.
But then again, that is why God created parents to be a man and woman.
@ Debora-389330...what world do you live in that EVERY deadbeat parent pays their child support? Does not matter if it is between a man/woman woman/woman or man/man.....Read the article, one of these parents are very ill..not a deadbeat & BOTH WOMEN ADOPTED this child.
I work for a child support agency. The biggest hurdle (in my state, let alone the whole country) is there are no consistent laws across the board. One judge in one county may rule one way, while another in a different county, with the exact same circumstances, may rule another.
I have no problem with people paying their child support, or work toward paying it. I think it's wonderful when parents remain involved with their children. That being said, this donor wasn't a parent, the women were the parents. Kansas is wrong on this one.
We need some consistent laws across the board in all of our states. Such an olio of rulings defies some descriptions. Too much legalese is subjective to each party. If the laws can't be made consistent, perhaps a dictionary of terms that could be utilized by the states would be in order. Donor, contract, marriage, civil union, parent, etc. could be among the listings. (I'm sure there are many more.)
Kansas was wrong to strong arm this (ex) couple. The guy just donated. They are the parents. They need to be the ones dealing with the situation.
BTW, I'm a female, and I fought for 30 years to get my child support paid, as was ordered by the court. I finally got it, but it was a lot of effort for the pittance paid. However, I'm not so bitter that I can't see what is fair is fair.
Kansas is just looking out for the taxpayer with their laws.
People that make kids should be responsible for those kids regardless of how they want to disconnect from them. The taxpayer shouldn't have to take care of someone's kid if the parent has the ability. It seems like there are laws that exclude some parents from taking care of their kids but these people didn't follow them.
Note to some: Making kids isn't like making a stew and where you throw it out if you don't like it. They are people that you brought into this world, take responsibility!
I don't agree, Dick. This is an example of blind adherence to rules: in this case, that the father must always pay support. If this child had been adopted by a man and a woman who split up, would the birth father be on the hook for support? I doubt it.
While I agree with you about personal responsibility I don't agree with saying "people that make kids should be responsible for those kids" in every single instance, being that there are a regrettable number of women who sabotage their birth control, e.g. lie about being on the pill when they're not, to "oops" a man and coerce him into fatherhood/marriage. I have become educated on this taboo issue and think that, under these circumstances, a man should not have a say in the abortion/birth but then should also be able to sign away any parental rights and responsibilities.
Society still does not regard women as true equals with men. It disproportionately does not apply the death penalty to female murderers, and often reduces sentences for mothers, as if some dingbat who shoplifts with a baby in the cart is equal to a responsible woman with a child. That is what is going on in this case in Kansas: more "the man has to step up" thinking even when a lesbian couple has adopted the kid, as if two women equaled two one-half adults.
@Amusedmuse Very good point !!! Men,be careful, You also might be charged with a crime in Kansas connected to prolicide, every time you masturbate! Some might say mass genocide! They must have too much time on their hands, do they go after sperm donors in cases involving couples involving a man and a woman? I see a lawsuit in the works, so much for looking out for the taxpayers!
This is a homophobic witch hunt by the State of Kansas.
Kansas, get a clue. It's the 21st century. Not 1950.
.
Looks like we're not in vitro anymore, Toto.
I live in Rehoboth De.....The Guy summer beach capitol of the east coast...There is a Double Standard
The parties do have the contract to prove that the intent was for the man to act solely as the sperm donor. That's no different than if the donation and insemination had taken place in a clinic, or via mail order (which is another viable option, but not legally protected in KS).
I agree with your comments upthread that it's a bit more complicated than it appears because a private contract doesn't relieve an individual of obligations to the state, and the KS state law apparently only specifically allows relief when this is done through a clinic. All the private contract can do is hold harmless one of the parties through a promise by the other party to compensate the injured party......a worthless promise when one of the parties is indigent.
It'll be up to the court to decide if the intent and contract are comparable to the state authorized version used by clinics, but one thing weighing in their favor is that the couple did try to go that route, and were rejected apparently due to their family practice physician's homophobia, as this article notes:
True, that's clearly the intent here, but it also seems that they're not applying the law equally or justly since sperm donors who work through a clinic have no liability. The lawsuit also makes this observation:
They probably considered going through a fertility clinic to handle the insemination (which would have provided the needed legal protection) but decided they didn't want to spend the money and there was no need to. "Why should we spend all that money?" Well, now they know.
Ummmm......as the article noted, their doctor refused to sign a release. They had no other option.
Its Kansas. Home of the Westboro Baptist Terrorists. What do you expect? It's just a backdoor attempt in the religious right's war on gays. What does the fact that they did not use a doctor to get the sperm where it needed to go have anything to do with it? Just more BS from the we the "we love children until they're born" bunch.
If they only went to one doctor and felt shot down, then they should have consulted another. And another. And another. I refuse to believe if they could have gone all the way to Chicago for consultation from Kansas, they couldn't have found the opinion of a 2nd health care professional. If a doctor told you you have cancer and there was nothing to be done for it, wouldn't you consult the opinion of another before throwing in the flag and accepting it?!? I mean, Jesus! Im beginning to believe San Antonio is the only world-class progressive city in America based on people like these! and if those ladies were so discouraged by one person that they needed to resort to doing a backyard "sperm donation" from Craigslist as their only viable option to extend their family, then these ladies should have really stopped and considered whether they were really emotionally ready for another child. After all, there is none judged more harshly in a society than a mother. And that is GOSPEL!
OMG! You know what another thought I had about this whole story? You realize what this means with three people who are reproducing all willy-nilly is leading to, right? Its Idiocracy in action! the dumbest people are reproducing the most! People uneducated about legal ramifications of shady sperm donating and no regard to the continued long term care of their kids! OMG! Lol! these ladies had EIGHT kids and still claim to be ignorant of reproduction consequences and the way state law regarding welfare works! Thank god for mine and my husband's college educations and our single child! Whoop whoop!
It just got out of hand.
it is a back door for the state to stick their noses where they do not belong. the two women should hold the total liability for this child they made the choice to raise. any and all sperm donors need to be left alone unless, they are a part of the family unit.
Just remember, no good deed goes unpunished. When you get into the circle of ilgotten debachery you never know how it will playout. Since I don't believe in same sex marriage and homosexual relationships, I think this whole thing is kinda funny. Here is a guy who did the same thing people do everyday. Donate sperm to help a childless couple. But because he didn't cross every T and dot everyI correctly, he is in the middle of a "divorce". He is now the proud pappa and has to support the child. Even the governemnt can't keep it straight on who should pay. The gay couple? Oh but they weren't legally married. The one who adopted. No because she is indigent. The one who concieved? No, she is now on welfare.
Let's let the doctor who delivered pay, He touched the baby. Maybe the taxi driver who brought the couple home. This is the exact reason, I do not believe gay couples should not adopt. There is no real legal bond to make them accountable.
Dick-2100935
It just got out of hand.
Watch how you say that. Since they did not go through a licensed doctor, that might just be the means of
transfer there..... lol
So, I guess if a Doctor used equipment to artificially inseminate the women with the donor sperm he would be in the clear but since he inseminated her ("naturally") then he is considered a biological parent. Moral to the story: don't have sex unless you want to be responsible for the outcome (amazing concept, isn't it?)
Hate to break the news to you but most children are not planned. There's much more willy-nilly than you think even among married committed opposite sex spouses.
I couldnt stop laughing in this article. Wouldnt one of the women be " the man " :D This is the kind of mess we will get form having a society who keeps needing to redefine everything. Pushing those boundaries and seeing how far we can go. You all are just making more loop holes and red tape. Society plummets even more.
Reality is we are not totally equal. A man is a man, and a woman is a woman. Our anatomy is different, Men are stronger. Woman seem to be better in certain curriculum where men seem better in others..
But not these days, every thing is Gender neutral , like its a hate crime to think there are difference between men and women.
A mans role in life is to be the head of the house, to be a leader, positive influence. Never would I view a woman as beneath me. We all have our roles in life. What is wrong with a woman cooking for her husband who was at work all day making money to provide for his family ? Is cooking for the family some kind of low life bottom of the bucket position ? How about it being a very highly needed and honorable position. Why shouldnt a woman feel the need to take care of her man, who was out providing for the family ? A woman should support her mans ideas. I also believe that man and woman should discuss their decisions, but the final decision should be the mans. A woman should respect that because the man is in a position of authority over his household. No where did I state that a man is to disrespect, treat mean, degrade, mock, ridicule, look down upon his wife. She is equal to him , but man has final say.
Probably a good reason to outlaw sperm donating and lesbianism.
Notice to all women. Kids are not pets.
That made me laugh.
I'd prefer they banned retarded comments.
Most people can't afford to do that out of network or pay for it out of pocket.
This was a scene in the movie "Legally Blond" if I remember. Yes it absolutely was. Reese Witherspoon presents arguments relating to sperm donors and 'wins' the argument. Ha. Wonder if someone in Kansas also watched that flick . . .
Cheers. And a good new year to everyone.
He did not go through "properly sanctioned" Government channels. I.E. the Gubment, didn't get there cut.
Now they want it.
As far as the adoption defense is concerned, again "properly sanctioned". I am sure this argument was presented before and new laws were made, as I am sure they will be in this case.
I believe the state was ASKED to get involved, weren't they? The minute the women asked for the state to pay for the child, the state was asked to get involved.
Well, Lucy Jr. I guess you have no extremists in your state. You have no Communists that wish to deny everyone the right to private property? You have no cultists that have committed suicide to get on the Comet Space Ship? Where is this Utopia, so that I may come live there?
Are you just stupid or did your mom drop you when you were little?
"When the two women split in 2010, they had eight children, including some they adopted, whom they now co-parent. "
A separated Lesbian with eight children. That's some messed up Liberal crap right there.
Would you say the same about a heterosexual married couple with eight kids? I doubt it.
Bigots like you would more likely applaud their family values. Apparently you have a double standard.
skrekk
I'd say the same if they had eight ADOPTED kids! If you can't afford to support kids you shouldn't have them, period!
Right on OldDog. I am soooo tired of people having children they cannot afford. Children cost money. If you cannot pay to raise children DO NOT HAVE ANY. Why is that so hard to understand. You don't always get what you want.
According to the article, one of the women was supporting the entire family just fine until a serious illness caused her to lose her job, so when they had and/or adopted these children, they had the money for them.
gamestheyplay,
They could afford those kids until one of them became ill and could no longer contribute what she once had. So only those that have at least $300,000 (average cost in the US to raise a child till the age of 18) in their savings accounts should have children?
While I disagee with what the state is doing, I can see their point. This is a couple who have 8 children that they are now asking the state to support so they are looking to biological parents to participate in that support. The same thing happens with a man and woman who have children and then one parent files for state support...they go after the other parent for payments toward the amount the state is going to provide. If the couple had been smart, since they didn't go about this donor process using legal means, I would have claimed it was a 1 night stand and there would be no way for the state to go after the bio-father.
So let's assume that a single career woman tired of hearing her clock tick tick tick adopts a child from a knocked up teenager. Then single career woman finds out she has cancer and has to leave her job and go on assistance.
Does the state go after Bio-mom who put baby up for adoption?
Does the state go after Bio-dad who may not have even known bio-mom was knocked up?
Why is it different when the women are adopting the baby from the father?
seems fishy.
That's a separate issue, whether it's prudent for anyone to have eight kids naturally or otherwise.
My point was that Amacc seems to have an anti-gay (and bizarrely anti-liberal) bias. I very much suspect he has a double standard.
Ginny, from the way this article is written, Kansas is only going after this man, not the biological parents of any of the other adopted children. If the state is going to make him pay support for that child, then they should also make the bio parents of the other adopted kids do the same. Since that is unlikely, and the child in question was adopted legally in the state, there is no reason for the state to go after this man.
This is what happens when the Church runs the State. This case will not last in the Appeals process and Kansas will be forced to look like the fools they really are.
And thats my opinion
This is precisely why I don't support gay marriage. Because eventually they'll wan tto get their hands in my wallet as well. Stop making taxpayers pay for the bad decisions of idiots. I'm glad Kansas is going after this guy. In this instance there are at least three parents involved, probably more since there are eight kids, yet the taxpayer is stuck holding the bill for the welfare of the kids. How is that even remotely fair to the taxpayers? Diddle with who you want behind your bedroom door but leave me the hell out of it, including the need for my money to support it.
Getalife,
That's a comically bad argument. Do you have any idea how many heterosexual people are on government assistance? It's not exclusively homosexuals you know.
Ummmm.....your comment makes zero sense since the couple wasn't married under KS law.
Sounds like your objection is to adoption or artificial insemination by gays. Marriage has nothing at all to do with those things, but marriage equality would make these legal issues far easier since the same laws would apply equally to both gays and straights and existing precedent would thus be easier to apply.
@!$%# happens. Life likes to throw wrenches into every plan. They were healthy and loving parents who were able to support all 8 of those kids. Then a wrench came out and took down the bread winner. It's not like they were collecting kids to increase the amount of welfare money they got, since they didn't get any to begin with.
So many self righteous people on here...
Kansas, the other Texas.
or vice versa. And I thought Iowa was the boonies. No offense intended to people from Iowa. From the map, they just seem off the beaten path.
Iowa is pretty tough on fathers when it comes to child support and changing orders. This story could easily have been from Iowa.
Actually Iowa has it right - they already did marriage equality the right way, and their courts have already correctly decided several similar custody and support cases.
Kansas is in the stone age compared to Iowa.
The article stated that a Texas court had previously sided with a sperm donor, seems they aren't backwards in this case.
Actually, Iowa has my BF by the balls. He is the main support for his ex -wife and her new husband (I know that, for a fact). He is paying her for a "child" that is over 21 and has been on his own since the age of 18. Iowa does NOT have it right.
Well, whatever the specific alimony and custodial vs non-custodial bias, the point is that Iowa is treating gays and straights the same.
And given what you say are the facts (new marriage and a child which is independent and of the age of majority), I'd suggest that your BF might not be telling you the whole story. Sounds more like he might have been delinquent in his child support payments, and the state has a lien on his income.
pj-965429- If your Significant Other is still paying child support for child over 18 then he's paying back child support. That means he's paying to make up for a period when he wasn't handing over a cent. It doesn't let you off the hook just because he didnt have income, refused to pay it, or the custodial parent got remarried to Bill Gates(i.s. someone really rich). He'll be done when the entire amount is paid in full.
hatsumomo: Actually, that depends on the state. Some states the age limit is 18 or graduation from high school (which ever is later). Other states, it's different - in Missouri, for example, if the child enrolls in college by October of the year after they graduate from high school, then child support is due until the child turns 21 or graduates college, whichever is sooner.
In Iowa, child support is due until the child is 18 or 19 if the child will graduate high school (or get a GED) while at age 19. They also have an exception that says that support can be extended if the child has mental or physical disabilities that require the child to remain dependent on the parents.
So, if pj's BF is paying child support for a child over 21 that is not mentally or physically disabled, then it's exactly what you said - the BF fell behind child support at some point and is paying arrears. In fact, depending on the age of the child now and at the time he/she graduated from high school, the BF is at least 2 years behind in child support payments. You're absolutely right - arrears don't disappear when the child reaches the age of majority, they just quit accumulating.
@ pj-965429,Your friend can have his balls back if he does back to court & proves said 18yr old child is not in school, not living with the mother & if they are NOT paying BACK OWED child support...if the said"child" is 21 & not enrolled in college full time then it is your friends own lack of responsibility to not get this resolved.
OR maybe PJ's BF's child is mentally disabled? My husband has to pay his ex-wife forever for their autistic daughter (she's 27) I think it should be lowered or stopped, because she has her own income and could forseeably live on her own. (we're in tx and they're in indiana)
PJ one day karma will get the ex, my husband's ex is having to pay back 30 thousand dollars to ssi because she never told them that their daughter had a job or that she was receiving child support.
PJs states that the child lives on their own
From PJ's post: He is paying her for a "child" that is over 21 and has been on his own since the age of 18.
If the child has been living on his own since 18, he is clearly not dependent on the parents, even if he does have some level of disability. Thus meaning no child support owed on a child this child. In this case, the state would only still be enforcing child support IF there was back due support.
I missed that, yeah sounds like it's back due child support. Shouldn't the kid be getting the money though?
My daughter is fixin to be 16 we've lived in Texas since she was 2, I just got a letter from the child support people in California asking me if I wanted them to go after her father for child support (he's never paid a dime) I just laughed, when we lived there I gave them all the information they required (he lived less then a block from their office) and they couldn't be bothered with it since I wasn't collecting any kind of welfare, me working two jobs and going to college was good enough support for her.
Technically, no, ethically, yes. Technically, child support is to help pay for the expenses of raising a child, so, technically arrears are, more or less, reimbursements to the custodial parent for expenses they've already paid. If I were the parent, I would be giving the money to the child - since it the needs of the child were already met.
My youngest son's father is currently over $12,000 in arrears - my ex-husband has also never paid child support. My son is currently receiving medicaid, since I'm in medical school. When I was in undergrad, we did receive a lot more assistance - housing, food stamps, medicaid, and heating assistance. I was grateful for the help - it allowed me to go to school full-time, work part-time on campus as a work study, graduate at the top of my class, volunteer, shadow physicians, do research and be a mom to my boys. Because I was able to do so well in undergrad, I was able to have a strong medical school application and get accepted. Since I have a bachelors degree, and am considered employable but not looking for work (which I can't look for work since my medical school doesn't allow it nor have time for it), I'm not eligible for assistance other than medicaid for my boys. The state has pursued him for child support - he's be in jail a couple of times due to it, still does pay. Right now, he is, admittedly, in a tougher position - he has been diagnosed with brain cancer, so he can't work - but, he is applying for disability. If he gets approved for disability, then I will receive a set amount each month for our son, and his support order will be terminated (but he will still owe the arrears).
Child support is important - however, in the case of this couple in the article and the man involved, there was never the intention (as outlined in their contract), that he would be a parent. In this case, child support should not be ordered, imo.
I agree Summer he should not be paying.
My husband pays his child support every month but his ex will have his son call and ask for more (mind you my husband gives her 1500.00 a month for the two kids plus she's fixin to get half his military retirement) When my husband tells him no, she makes it out that his dad doesn't love him, it's such a nightmare sometimes. I just paid part of our bills we have 154.00 left until the next paychecks come in, in 3 weeks, I haven't bought groceries or put gas in the truck to get us back and forth to work in that 3 weeks. She thinks we're trying to "screw her" and her lawyer is trying to take part of my pay too, which we know will never happen, we've been in court for two years now. She doesn't understand why she can't have my pay too. *shakes head*
Ugh, that's dildos, FitzWife. Karma will ass @!$%# the ex with a cactus eventually (same for all the other folks dealing with dead-beat/selfish ex's out there). There are double standards all over the place when it comes to child support and custodial issues; regardless of gender or orientation. It's ridiculous. And Kansas is Soooo wrong in this case.
FitzWife: Your husbands ex is a piece of work, to put it nicely. What a stupid woman. She puts her son in a horrible position, and is just pathetic. Best of luck to you guys!!
Kansas...what a joke. It will be over=turned in Fed court
WTF makes you think it will ever end up in federal court? It's not automatic, or cheap to fight a case through all the different courts! Most cases never get that far.
I don't understand - with all the equality fought for - why can't homosexual couples reproduce by themselves? Will someone please explain this to me.
Here's a newsflash for you...since you apparently don't get the news in the rock you live under...many heterosexual couples cannot "reproduce by themselves" either...and are forced to use surrogates, sperm donors, in vitro or adopt.
And here's another piece of information for you....being able to reproduce does not necessarily make someone a good parent.
Actually, whata, I'd stand a better chance of explaining quantum physics to my dog. And he'd understand it better, too.
anything
I don't understand!!!! Why won't they leave Britney alone!!!!! Wahhh......
:)
Why don't you explain it to us, genius?
Why homosexual couples can't reproduce by themselves?
You're kidding, right? You'll have to start school first, then ask me again when you get to third grade, in ten years or so.
Quantums are like sperms, their little tiny things that you can't see, but eventually they stick together and make baby universes, and that's how you get everything. Dogs are smart, but not smart enough to understand that.
Shocker, someone with the name god being arrogant and nasty. Typical.
Well, Tina, do YOU know why homosexual couples can't reproduce by themselves?
Would you care to explain it nicely to them? Do it without my arrogance and without being nasty, OK? I wonder what their replies will be.
No one desderves to be talked down to Dont know why every debate on the comp has to turn into an all out brawl all the time. And no Im not a big typer, I would assume given enough time, people can figure that out on their own. Or you can just explain yourseld without the condescending tone maybe. Just a thought. I thought people who believed in God were supposed to be kind people. Im finding this to be extremely false lately. Its a shame, I remember my catholic upbringing as being kind. Oh well!
Well, we've explained all this before, but once again: homosexual couples CAN reproduce by themselves, as long as one of them is male and the other one is female.
-GOD, still lives with his parents.
I am thinking that SoggyDawg does, he is just deflecting
Not one of you realized this was sarcasm?
We were all being sarcastic in response. It was a multiple sarcasm.
Actually now with the advances in the science of genetics we are absolutely able to produce a child from two people regardless of sex. All that is needed anymore is DNA from both parties. Of course however this is not in mainstream practice but completely available.
Parthenogenesis. It's known to happen occaisionally in female sharks or turkeys, as well as various reptiles, rotifers and fish. The discredited Hwang Hoo-Suk (yes, it's a real name, trolls) announced in 2007 that he'd managed to create the first human embryos by parthenogenesis. He was shot down, but actually did make a huge breakthrough by creating these embryos through the use of stem cells via parthenogenesis.
Parthenogenesis comes from the Greek for virgin birth.
WRONG - a gay man can have a woman wear a reverse-costume doll of a man with a hairy ass, then pretend hers is a different aperture..
WTF is wrong with these Kansas whackos?????
A great example of another insane law....
What law? Homosexual partnerships are not recognized in Kansas ... ok that is fine but adoptions are so the question is if one heterosexual person had adopted the child [which at least one did], which is allowed in Kansas, would the state go after the biological father? The answer is no, there in lies the state's loss in court.
There is no insane law involved just insane people.
There are meds you can take (they only have side effects that can kill you!) Don't worry, though. We won' miss you.
pj - I can see logic and reason befalls you, go to sleep, it will come to you tomorrow.
Oh_no. OHHH Nooo.... Whatever. Do you have a logical and reasonable point? I didn't think so.
Sleep well.
pj - logical point?
Don said "another insane law"
This article did not point out a law that one might consider insane in fact there was really no law in question that the state could use to demand payment from the donor so my response is it may not be the law but in fact illogical people in the state that are making these unreasonable, illogical and insane decisions.
Were you the one that sent me the e-mail?
"while I agree there should not be a difference, if you read the story closely, courts have clearly excluded donors, who use licensed sperm banks. Not one of the exceptions listed above included such a donation, only those, that were direct between the man and the couple"
Happy New Year
Brought to you by the state who thinks creationism is a real science and wanted to "remove Obama from the ballot".
While there are some questions that need to be answered, I think the original signed agreement that stated:
"held him harmless “for any child support payments demanded of him by any other person or entity, public or private ... regardless of the circumstances or said demand,"
should be enough to settle this, but then again see my initial comments.
A private contract can't shield you from governmental actions (or provide you with governmental benefits). The best that the contract can do is, as this one says, hold him harmless. But, in that context, it means that the couple would reimburse him for whatever he might be required to pay. However, it doesn't sound as if the couple is in a financial position to do so.
Exactly. That contract was thrown out the window the moment the couple gave up the doners name.
They knew damn well the State was going to go after the "doner".
There should have been a breach of contract clause. That would have been worth just about as much as the contract was. Worthless.
It doesn't say in the article (or maybe I missed it?) If the contract was notarized or signed by witnesses, that may make all the difference?
Good question. I don't know. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. huh, don't know.
The state is basing its position on HOW the insemination was done. Having the contract notarized doesn't bind third parties (i.e. the state).
The state is getting hung up on a technicality. If the sperm had been obtained from a sperm bank, the donor would've been shielded. Since it wasn't, they're going after the donor. Very inconsistent and indefensible. But, Kansas has never been accused of employing logic.
Well, Kansas, things like THIS are why god is turning you into a dust bowl.
About 80 years too late with that one, sport!
Old Dog,
Pay attention, it is happening again. There's an article on it today.
-god...first your name is wrong in more ways than I can conceive & god has nothing to do with a written contract.
No good deed . . .
It sounds like Kansas has some very stupid people running that state. This guy should refuse to PAY anything for that child. That Child is the Responsibility of the two Lesbians. Kansas Is rated right up there with Alabama and Mississippi for Stupidiness.
Maybe some Russians would like to adopt the child. And why aren't there any of those fervid christians in Kansas stepping forward to help?
?
This is obviously an attempt by conservatives to hit back against lesbian parenthood and artificial insemination, both of which are anathema to traditional family values. It sounds like something straight out of the Tea Party playbook. After all, we ARE in Kansas, the American heartland where homosexuals and gay parenting are quite far from any sort of acceptance.
That's not necessarily true, I have a couple of sets of "tea party" friends who are A) homosexual B) had children from artificial insemination and here's the kicker they're even C) BLACK!
omg! who'd of thought??? And I'm in the state that people love to hate, Texas.
1sgfitz: sure your friends aren't just protecting themselves, if they weren't card-carrying tpers they may have been chased out of the state or worse!
Definitely something in the water in Kansas.
Wow, the collective ignorance of Kansas never ceases to amuse, maybe it's that uber right wing children of the corn inbreeding thing they have going that makes Phelps feel at home there.
Go get him.....He fathered the kids and if he did not want to be responsible he should have kept it in his pants....In other words, he should pay.....That is the way of biology and not of being politically correct....
Know what a sperm donor is?
So any couple who adopts and the seeks help form the state they should go after the biological father.
Since every child has two biological parents, does it not stand to reason that a state, which has not legalized gay marriage, would seek money from either parent to support the child? We can't just make babies, then decide it's the taxpayers responsibility to take care of them. But that's what we do. We live our lives however we choose, what makes us feel good. Then when things don't work out for us, we expect those who have made better, wiser decisions than we have to fix it. Maybe these mothers don't support the state's decision to go after this man. But they don't have to support the child, he doesn't have to support the child...why do I have to support this child????
Because it IS a child! Why shouldn't the rest of us give just a little to help those in need? How can human beings be so selfish and insane? Do any of you lot have souls? Are you human?
The self-preoccupation and selfishness of conservatives/libertarians apparently has no upper bounds!
so in your way of thinking all sperm donors should pay for the thousands of children good luck with that retard.................
But the child is adopted! I'm adopted and no one went after my birth parents for child support.
These women just want other taxpayers to pay for their lifestyle. They sound just like Barack Obama supporters
mindless
People you need to look up to.
If you'd only gotten an education, you'd be an Obama supporter, too.
Sounds like the entitlement crows wants to add their penney and a half
Why are you libs so convinced that you're better educated and smarter than everyone else?
Not everyone, just the people making retarded comments here.
Why are you so convinced we're not?
I've read a lot more blockhead comments from libs today than any other single group.
The fact that you lump everyone together who doesn't agree with you as "libs" makes YOU the blockhead, gramps. Nobody has referred to you as a nazi teabagger yet, have they?
What lifestyle is that? They worked just like th rest of us, and fell on hard times. Has nothing to do with their lifestyle, it has to do witht the purpose of paying taxes. They paid into it and went to take advantage when they needed the help. Hopefully you never go downhill quick and need assistance for something. What a horrible thing to say.
Maybe because we actually read the article and understand that it's not these women who are wanting taxpayers to "pay for their lifestyle." it's the Kansas state government that's trying to force the man to pay child support.
Compromise now, you are an idiot!!!
Well it is Kansas. What would anyone expect? How can so many wackos live in one state?
Only in Kansas would they try and nail a sperm donor with child support. We should send that kid to live with Russian Parents who need to adopt a kid just to show them there's no hard feelings.
Not really, courts in other states have done things just as crazy. Several states have made men pay child support even after it was proven that the child wasn't theirs! The only thing crazier than bureaucrats would be judges!
What Old Dog said... Heck the article even says other states have done or tried to do this. I don't even know why comments like refried's are getting my hackles up, I've never even BEEN to Kansas lol.
Kansas, a lot like Oklahoma only just as crazy.
Dear "Lard", maybe it is crazy to procreate against one's own natural procreative capabilities.
And exactly how does that work?
lol flbiker I was just going to say the same thing, if it isn't "natural" then how in fact did the WOMAN get pregnant and give birth?
Is it because they're lesbians or is it because they used artificial insemination that's so "crazy"?
I agree. If it wasn't for that, we wouldn't have people like Octomom and that welfare couple that had the sextuplets and became "celebrities" and got the whole country to donate money and clothes to them even though they already had kids they couldn't support. Or those 19 and counting idiots. Yep. Those are the people this country glorifies.
No wonder all the collage aged donate (sperm) by way of a drunken one night stand with their lesbo "friends".
not suprised. lots of stupid bs comes out of Kansas.
This won't stop. All government entities (city, state, fed) are going broke. They will continue to bleed us unless we stop them!
If they are going broke it's primarily because our economic "elites" are screwing the rest of us over just so they can satisfy their endless hunger for wealth and power. They bribe and intimidate the politicians to give them ever more handouts and special breaks, yet the more they receive the more they expect.
And, they are allowed to do this in no small part due to idiots like you who buy the utterly absurd and innane notion that somehow it's the POOR who are "selfishly" twisting the system to their advantage (and not the rich elites and politicians who actually have the power). That's like a murder complaining over how his victims "Selfishly" placed their bodies in the way of his knife. Honestly, are people like you even human?
Alan, I don't understand your logic. "Economic elites" who do what they can to keep the money they earn are "bad," while people who take money by threat of force from others (recipients of government largesse benefit from the state's extraction of taxes by the threat of force) are the victims? Sorry, the "elites" (top 10%) pay 70% of the federal income taxes, and property taxes are all but unaviodable. I'm sure they also pay a pile of taxes on all the material goods they purchase (as well as helping to keep employed those workers who produce the products they consume). What do you think rich people do with their money, put it in their matresses?
Largesse?!?!?! I have been paying into Medicare and Medicaid as well as social security since I started working over 25 years ago, it is neither largesse nor an entiltlement if I ever needed it ( I have not) some of that money is mine!!!!!
You have not paid enough. It is not yours. It was used to pay for others. So now anything you may get is an entitlement. Your governement has just screwed u.
I don't think it's "ours" anymore UMM (I've been paying about as long as you) I think ours pays for the generation before us. I just recently got my social security letter thing that I get every year and it basically says for every thousand dollars I've put in I'll be getting a whopping 11.00 of it back, yeehaw! Think I'll retire tomorrow! /sarcasm
phil,
"It is not yours. It was used to pay for others. So now anything you may get is an entitlement."
Sorry phil but you're wrong. It matters not WHERE your money goes nor WHEN it is spent. The basic fact is that you paid into the fund, hence it is not an entitlement.
Leave it to basackwards Kansas to "cum" up with this one.
whoops. You just gave them the idea!