This is why you HIRE A LAWYER to peruse contracts this important - I mean, that's a no brainer.
But then he was originally going to sell his spooge on Craigslist, and 2 lesbians were looking for spooge on same.
NOT a sterling example of clear thinking all'round.
ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE
The law is cited in the OP's link:
"Marotta will ask the court in a hearing January 8 to dismiss the claim, which centers on a state law that the sperm must be donated through a licensed physician in order for the father to be free of any later financial obligations. Marotta gave a container of semen to the couple, who found him on Craigslist, instead of donating through a doctor or clinic."
If two parties make a contract that goes against the law, that contract not just unenforceable, it is void. Dude should have done his homework.
Agreed he went outside the law and for that will likely have to pay to support his child. Then once the women get on their feet if they are genuine then they will simply absolve him of payment. I know of plenty of single mothers who choose to forgo the payments from the dad just to avoid the dad. If the women do not need government handouts then the government has no enforcement...EXCEPT we are talking about Kansas. What I would like to see is how aggressively the State of Kansas goes after heterosexual deadbeat dads or if this is an extra special case.
As far as Kansas and the state taking up the mantle of child protectorate well it gets above the law sometimes. As an example, I had a sailor who was goofing around with his son at a local store. A older lady called the police, reported their license tag and said that the sailor was kicking and beating his son. The case went to family court and it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that no abuse occurred. Yet the CPS of Kansas refused to let the matter drop and then ruled in their own hearing that they don't care about evidence or the courts, they were going to label this guy a child abuser. It took two more hearings and a lot of wrangling at different levels to get them to accept the evidence and drop the case.
Something tells me this cat aint getting out of anything in the state of Kansas.
I can see the reasoning behind such a law - without it, the possibility exists for a man to simply assert he was only a donor and the woman would have no recourse - he said she said.
I'd have a lot more sympathy if any of the three of them had bothered to look it the fuck up.
ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE
Yeah i already stated that. easy day.
Still i would love a investigative look into how aggressively they pursued this case versus others. This is the land where they killed Tiller and home to Westboro Baptist.... the crazy ass people come in spades.
And TX-Beau is right. Libertarian arguments about what's moral and what "should" be are irrelevant when discussing what IS. Claiming that this is somehow government's fault is ludicrous. People do stupid shit all the time. Laws are there to enforce order in such dealings. Some times it seems the result is bad (you apparently consider this one to be so), other times it's clearly good (what if the father in a couple decided he just didn't wanna take care of his kid and bailed?). You can't pick and choose when it should work and when not.
That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe
Kansas militia expects zombies, and it’s dead serious
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/03...#storylink=cpy
Kansas daredevil dies in leap from 393-foot tower (funeral is today)
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/04...#storylink=cpy
You say the state should not have stepped in because of the contract between the 3 people, but the state was brought in by the women when they could not afford to pay for the child's birth. Who is paying for the support of the child now?
Everyone wants to be heard. No one wants to listen.
It is perhaps also worth pointing out at this stage in the discussion - because it appears to have been overlooked - that the couple are no longer together. Schreiner has custody of the child which is why, as a single parent, she went to the State for welfare assistance. My guess is that in innocently being truthful about her circumstances when making her claim, she inadvertently opened this can of worms. Regardless of the pressure put on her, I just don't understand why she gave Marotta's name, and I don't understand why, given the economic climate they would choose to have a child now. But that's by the by.
That said, taking it a stage further, if the State was to accept an unauthorised sperm donor contract, what's to stop hundreds of mothers (living with their partners) handing in these kind of contracts and claiming that their offspring was donated by anonymous sperm?
"Hey honey, let's have a kid."
"We can't afford one."
"Yes we can. We can tell them that it was donated sperm. That way, you don't have to pay towards the child, the State will."
It's just one of those unfortunate things, but it'll be interesting to see how the court case goes.
Shouldn't the state of Kansas also sue her former partner for child support?
Equal rights come with responsibilities.
That said this is an excellent lesson. Us homos will be opened up to thing like child support and alimony. Ya know what? I am good with assuming that responsible adult situation so that my love life can be legally protected like any other. But that is just me.
"Whilst the exact same Sperm Donor contract would be legally binding if the means of acquiring the sperm was through an authorised avenue; because is was acquired via a non-authorised avenue, the contract isn't legally binding. Crazy."
Not crazy at all. Kansas could see that in any case where a doctor told a woman that having a child would be risky, owing to, let's say, the woman's advanced age, or any one of a myriad of medical conditions, that the woman would go to the "black market" of Craigslist. They would be on the hook for what would inevitably be enormous medical bills for infants born to these at-risk mothers. If a woman chooses to go against the advice of her doctor, she is assuming the risk. It should not be passed on to the state.
Also, once the mother sought state aid, it was incumbent upon Kansas to obtain the name of the parent. The mother did not "give him up" to the authorities.
Good article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2395412.html
What's crazy is spelling "authorized" with an "s"!!!
In most, or all, all states, the biological father is liable for the support of the child. The right is for the protection of the child and therefore, the mother cannot contract it away. The contract of the mother and/or ex partner could form the basis for an indemnification suit by the father to recover back what he pays from them, but of course the mother has no money. I do not know what the ex has. The old legal maxim is, you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.
It seems to me that Kansas needs to amend this law. The state could assert some interest in wanting some regulation of sperm donation. For example, the state may want a record of parenthood for future medical needs of the child or to prevent the spread of STIs. However, what if the women wanted a relative or friend to be a sperm donor? Why should there be any less protection for the donor or couple in that circumstance? The state could achieve its interest in maintaining records or public health without requiring all sperm donation go through a sperm bank.
See, thing is, there IS legal protection for the donor - when handled within the bounds of the law - ALL they had to do was consult a lawyer, and there would be no case.
But no, they didn't, they didn't think it through, they didn't bother to ask. The state is in no way being unreasonable, and while yes I think that the guy is getting shafted, well, he didn't act to protect himself either.
The state perhaps might not have gone after the guy if they recognized the relationship between the two women and went after the other lesbian instead.
So, does anyone know if the other lesbian offered to pay the child support? Or did she just skip out and avoid responsibility for a child she helped bring into the world?
None of the principals in this come across as particularly responsible adults.
ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE
Yeah I see this whole thing (while not defending the Kansas law per se) as akin to doing something like seeking a life insurance policy through craig's list, or adopting a kid via Craig's list without the proper legal channels/documentation.
It's going to blow up.