Shameful Lesbians Forcing Sperm Donor to Pay Child Support

[Just_Believe18]

As much as we advocate and fight for our rights, there's always a few bad apples who embarrass all of us. A lesbian couple sought for a sperm donor on Craigslist so they could have a child for $50. The man who replied to it actually did it for free to help the women start a family out of the kindness of his heart. After the baby is born, they suddenly realize just how expensive it was to have one. So what do they do? They petition the state of Kansas to force the sperm donor to pay child support, including the $6,000 in medical bills for the child's birth. Seems like a no brainer to tell these women to go scissor themselves, right? Nope. Apparently, if you don't donate your sperm through an official sperm bank, you're legally liable for the child.

http://news.yahoo.com/child-support-...014725388.html

KANSAS CITY, Kansas (Reuters) - A Kansas man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple so they could have a child said on Wednesday he is shocked the state is now trying to make him pay child support.William Marotta, 46, donated sperm to Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauer under a written agreement that he would not be considered the father of the child nor liable for child support. A daughter, now 3, was born to Schreiner.
But in October, the state of Kansas filed a petition seeking to have Marotta declared the father of the child and financially responsible for her after the couple encountered money difficulties.

Disgusting women.

[palemale]

As much as we advocate and fight for our rights, there's always a few bad apples who embarrass all of us. A lesbian couple sought for a sperm donor on Craigslist so they could have a child for $50. The man who replied to it actually did it for free to help the women start a family out of the kindness of his heart. After the baby is born, they suddenly realize just how expensive it was to have one. So what do they do? They petition the state of Kansas to force the sperm donor to pay child support, including the $6,000 in medical bills for the child's birth. Seems like a no brainer to tell these women to go scissor themselves, right? Nope. Apparently, if you don't donate your sperm through an official sperm bank, you're legally liable for the child.

http://news.yahoo.com/child-support-...014725388.html

Disgusting women.[/FONT][/COLOR]

The women aren't doing it, the state is. When the women fell on hard times, they went on welfare or some form of state assistance. The state is trying to get the man to pay so that it does not have to. It is the state of Kansas that is disgusting.

[rareboy]

^ I would have to agree.

It appears that it is more a case of the State attempting to make the biological father responsible.

I wonder if they pursue all the deadbeat dads with equal fervour, or whether they just like this case because of the circumstances.

[chance1]

More proof that the economy is for shit

Even two lesbians can't make ends meet

The guy should have NO liability here morally IMO

[Corny]

Yeah, as it already has been said - you got this wrong. The women sought support from the state. The state chose to make this a case against sperm donors

[Luciant]

Read the story closer. The women are not doing this to the man; the state is. The couple is furious with the state.

[Jack Springer]

As much as we advocate and fight for our rights, there's always a few bad apples who embarrass all of us. A lesbian couple sought for a sperm donor on Craigslist so they could have a child for $50. The man who replied to it actually did it for free to help the women start a family out of the kindness of his heart. After the baby is born, they suddenly realize just how expensive it was to have one. So what do they do? They petition the state of Kansas to force the sperm donor to pay child support, including the $6,000 in medical bills for the child's birth. Seems like a no brainer to tell these women to go scissor themselves, right? Nope. Apparently, if you don't donate your sperm through an official sperm bank, you're legally liable for the child.

http://news.yahoo.com/child-support-...014725388.html

Disgusting women.[/FONT][/COLOR]

OVER REACTION -- You didn't read the story.

The state of Kansas, not the two women, is trying to get the support from the man. Kansas is in trouble because of excessive spending and reduction or elimination of taxes for some companies and individuals. They are trying to collect every penny they can.

[sixthson]

Isn't there already a thread on this?

The state wants him to pay $6,000. for the birth of the child. Why are the
women having a child they can't afford from the very beginning?
Just because you want a child doesn't mean you should have one if you
can't afford to raise him.

I think the state is claiming tax payers shouldn't foot the bill for this.
Those who gave life to the child should.
This is a case where the mothers can't afford to be responsible
for the baby and the state is claiming the women have no right to
absolve the man of his part in the conception.

We all have to take responsibility for our actions.

[JayHawk]

Wow could any other person jump in after the original post to chime in and say "you didn't read the story" lol.

I suppose this is a good lesson for any of us who may offer such help to friends. There are sperm banks and such for good reasons. To provide legal protections. The idea of trying as a gay male-male couple to have a surrogate is also a very difficult proposition whether that is done on or off the radar. Even in a legally agreed situation where everything is above board a surrogate can decide to keep the child after the prospective parents dole out the medical cost to get to birth. I would imagine in a under the table situation the Mother could easily use the courts to acquire parental rights no matter how long the child has been with the partnered men.

Still it takes a big man to jump in an article, read what others have written and then pretend to be sanctimonious about the OP not reading the story. lol.... these are the days of our lives.

[rareboy]

Wait till Stephen Colbert hears of this.

His Formula 401 Manseed has been one of his products for the past few years.

http://wikiality.wikia.com/Stephen_C...;s_Formula_401

[sixthson]

Jay, the point you make about "private" adoption is a good example of what this is about, in my opinion. This is not about pity for a gay couple or the birth father, this is about going through proper channels.
Any time a pregant women seeks out medical assistance, the state will want to know who the father is. Child support is not limited to married couples. The state regularly goes after fathers for child support.

It would be interesting to know the back grounds of the three people involved here. Has the man donated to other women? Did the women just assume welfare would pick of the tab for the birth and what was their financial state when they conceived?
Family planning has to include the ability to afford a family.

[rareboy]

Well as we all know...anyone can breed but it takes skill to be a parent. We also know that it takes a village to raise a child.

Hopefully this teaches guys to just cum on their chests instead of into a turkey baster.

At least Onan didn't have to pay child support.

[Kulindahr]

As much as we advocate and fight for our rights, there's always a few bad apples who embarrass all of us. A lesbian couple sought for a sperm donor on Craigslist so they could have a child for $50. The man who replied to it actually did it for free to help the women start a family out of the kindness of his heart. After the baby is born, they suddenly realize just how expensive it was to have one. So what do they do? They petition the state of Kansas to force the sperm donor to pay child support, including the $6,000 in medical bills for the child's birth. Seems like a no brainer to tell these women to go scissor themselves, right? Nope. Apparently, if you don't donate your sperm through an official sperm bank, you're legally liable for the child.

http://news.yahoo.com/child-support-...014725388.html

Disgusting women.[/FONT][/COLOR]

He should counter-sue for breach of contract, and emotional harrassment.

Trouble is, you can only sue the state with its permission.

[Kulindahr]

Jay, the point you make about "private" adoption is a good example of what this is about, in my opinion. This is not about pity for a gay couple or the birth father, this is about going through proper channels.
Any time a pregant women seeks out medical assistance, the state will want to know who the father is. Child support is not limited to married couples. The state regularly goes after fathers for child support.

It would be interesting to know the back grounds of the three people involved here. Has the man donated to other women? Did the women just assume welfare would pick of the tab for the birth and what was their financial state when they conceived?
Family planning has to include the ability to afford a family.

They had a contract. The state has no business ignoring it.

Any judge with common sense should tell the state that the existing contract overrides their desire to balance the state budget on the backs of whatever victims they can round up, and throw it out.

[xbuzzerx]

Isn't there already a thread on this?

The state wants him to pay $6,000. for the birth of the child. Why are the
women having a child they can't afford from the very beginning?
Just because you want a child doesn't mean you should have one if you
can't afford to raise him.

I think the state is claiming tax payers shouldn't foot the bill for this.
Those who gave life to the child should.
This is a case where the mothers can't afford to be responsible
for the baby and the state is claiming the women have no right to
absolve the man of his part in the conception.

We all have to take responsibility for our actions.

You'd be surprised how many people, including (since I know other thoughts will cross people's minds) plenty of white 14-2x year olds who can't afford to start a family, regard having kids regardless of any ability to provide for them as a simple life entitlement. I don't get it either.

Jay, the point you make about "private" adoption is a good example of what this is about, in my opinion. This is not about pity for a gay couple or the birth father, this is about going through proper channels.
Any time a pregant women seeks out medical assistance, the state will want to know who the father is. Child support is not limited to married couples. The state regularly goes after fathers for child support.

It would be interesting to know the back grounds of the three people involved here. Has the man donated to other women? Did the women just assume welfare would pick of the tab for the birth and what was their financial state when they conceived?
Family planning has to include the ability to afford a family.

That was really my horror at the whole thing was that people were doing things like this on Craig's List. Really? I mean what did the ad look like? "Will pay shipping of turkey baster"? The more and the more time goes on and people do more things they shouldn't on Craig's the more I regard it as a place that people too lazy, cheap and stupid to get things the way most people do just turn to Craig's List.

[Kulindahr]

You'd be surprised how many people, including (since I know other thoughts will cross people's minds) plenty of white 14-2x year olds who can't afford to start a family, regard having kids regardless of any ability to provide for them as a simple life entitlement. I don't get it either.

Among white supremacists, having "beautiful white children" is considered a duty, and letting the government pay for those children is considered the government's duty.

[Jack Springer]

Why did you change the subject?

He didn't read the story -- he reacted over reading the full story. We've all done it. I think we've all been called out on it.

You're the one who trying to act like they're better than the others.

Sanctimonious describes your response JayHawk.

Wow could any other person jump in after the original post to chime in and say "you didn't read the story" lol.

I suppose this is a good lesson for any of us who may offer such help to friends. There are sperm banks and such for good reasons. To provide legal protections. The idea of trying as a gay male-male couple to have a surrogate is also a very difficult proposition whether that is done on or off the radar. Even in a legally agreed situation where everything is above board a surrogate can decide to keep the child after the prospective parents dole out the medical cost to get to birth. I would imagine in a under the table situation the Mother could easily use the courts to acquire parental rights no matter how long the child has been with the partnered men.

Still it takes a big man to jump in an article, read what others have written and then pretend to be sanctimonious about the OP not reading the story. lol.... these are the days of our lives.

[SamsDad]

No aspersions being cast here, but why would the women give up the name of the donor in the first place. I think that there are other ways that it could have been handled.

[xbuzzerx]

No aspersions being cast here, but why would the women give up the name of the donor in the first place. I think that there are other ways that it could have been handled.

Presumably the correct father's name is on the birth certificate even if he has waived parental rights.

[SamsDad]

Presumably the correct father's name is on the birth certificate even if he has waived parental rights.

Presumably, but most states don't require the father's name on the certificate; eg, in cases of incest, rape, immaculate conception, etc. Seriously though, the state would probably not give up until someone provided a name and they did some DNA testing. I guess they could have given a fictitious name, but as they say what's done is done. Hopefully, people will think things over a little more before getting involved.

[Kulindahr]

Presumably, but most states don't require the father's name on the certificate; eg, in cases of incest, rape, immaculate conception, etc. Seriously though, the state would probably not give up until someone provided a name and they did some DNA testing. I guess they could have given a fictitious name, but as they say what's done is done. Hopefully, people will think things over a little more before getting involved.

Yep -- one more way for the government to discourage people from helping each other.

Kinda like a guy here who just wanted some pot holes in the road near his house fixed. He decided it would be easiest to do it himself, since he was getting his driveway repaved anyway. Thanks to a judge with good sense he didn't get fined, even though the DA insisted the guy should have gone through a process of permits that would have cost five times what it did to just fix the road.

[TX-Beau]

This guy should have no liability LEGALLY, but really, he should have thought this through a bit more.

[TX-Beau]

Yep -- one more way for the government to discourage people from helping each other.

This isn't helping an old lady carry groceries - this is creating a new life. There are CONSEQUENCES beyond just being nice.

[JayHawk]

Why did you change the subject?

He didn't read the story -- he reacted over reading the full story. We've all done it. I think we've all been called out on it.

You're the one who trying to act like they're better than the others.

Sanctimonious describes your response JayHawk.

The point is most of us notice and get it after the first post and see no further need to gang rape that person who made a mistake. I mean it isn't as if JustBelieve is posting fallacious bullshit threads every other day like most of your thread starts. It makes one wonder why a person like you would join the thread, read the previous entries and then say exactly the same thing as if you made some miraculous discovery. lol. If you wanna "ditto' a previous post just type ditto...

This is the second post in a row where you have jumped on my previous comment in another thread that you appear holier than thou.... musta struck a chord in you. lol.

[justdra]

can he just sign over his rights and be off the hook? if they force me to pay they I will be petitioning for joint custody.

[Just_Believe18]

Ah, this is my bad. I apologize for the confusion, everyone. If a moderator wants to adjust the thread title to the state, I can PM an adjusted commentary.

[TX-Beau]

That's the point - apparently no one but him WANTS him off the hook.

can he just sign over his rights and be off the hook? if they force me to pay they I will be petitioning for joint custody.

[xbuzzerx]

Ah, this is my bad. I apologize for the confusion, everyone. If a moderator wants to adjust the thread title to the state, I can PM an adjusted commentary.

Don't feel bad, Just Believe. This same topic is up in Hot Topics and I made precisely the same mistake you did. It's natural when you see there's a lawsuit for child support to presume the couple with the kids sought it... I'd never heard of the state, by itself, going after it without any complaint from the mother or party raising the kid.

[opinterph]

Ah, this is my bad. I apologize for the confusion, everyone. If a moderator wants to adjust the thread title to the state, I can PM an adjusted commentary.

Create a thread in the Ask the Moderators forum with your desired changes.

[Kulindahr]

This guy should have no liability LEGALLY, but really, he should have thought this through a bit more.

Thought what through? They signed an agreement that he would have no standing as the father. That should be the end of it.

[Kulindahr]

This isn't helping an old lady carry groceries - this is creating a new life. There are CONSEQUENCES beyond just being nice.

Of course there are. That's why he made an agreement with the mothers. The only problem here is the government butting in where it has no business. If citizens sign a contract, unless it's a contract to do harm, the government should be bound by it.

[TX-Beau]

Did he hire a lawyer? Do research? Or just jump in. I don't see how this diminishes the likelihood that I'm going to be nice to old ladies and children because of the "government."

I suspect anyone with any knowledge would have told him the law.

I for damn sure would not be siring any children without knowing exactly what the law concerning that was. 2 lesbians with an agreement does not an informed decision make.

I don't care what your OPINION on what SHOULD BE is, he obviously DIDN'T do his homework or he WOULD be LEGALLY untouchable.

[Kulindahr]

That's the point - apparently no one but him WANTS him off the hook.

Um, no -- the two women want him off the hook. They stand by their agreement and are fighting on his side.

[Kulindahr]

Don't feel bad, Just Believe. This same topic is up in Hot Topics and I made precisely the same mistake you did. It's natural when you see there's a lawsuit for child support to presume the couple with the kids sought it... I'd never heard of the state, by itself, going after it without any complaint from the mother or party raising the kid.

When kids are involved, states butt in all the time.

[Kulindahr]

Did he hire a lawyer? Do research? Or just jump in. I don't see how this diminishes the likelihood that I'm going to be nice to old ladies and children because of the "government."

I suspect anyone with any knowledge would have told him the law.

I for damn sure would not be siring any children without knowing exactly what the law concerning that was. 2 lesbians with an agreement does not an informed decision make.

I don't care what your OPINION on what SHOULD BE is, he obviously DIDN'T do his homework.

He shouldn't have to do any homework -- he made an agreement with the mothers, and that's where it should end. State intervention to mess with a contract agreed on by the parties involved is immoral.

[TX-Beau]

Um, no -- the two women want him off the hook. They stand by their agreement and are fighting on his side.

I rest my case, 2 lesbians with an agreement that wasn't legally enforceable.

[TX-Beau]

He shouldn't have to do any homework -- he made an agreement with the mothers, and that's where it should end. State intervention to mess with a contract agreed on by the parties involved is immoral.

Oh spare me - no one but you lives in the libertarian utopia in your head. OF COURSE he should have researched it.

I think he should get off the hook to, and mayhaps he will, BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT!

[chance1]

Ah, this is my bad. I apologize for the confusion, everyone. If a moderator wants to adjust the thread title to the state, I can PM an adjusted commentary.

not good enough JB

a public flogging is in order

[TX-Beau]

I have whips!!

[Kulindahr]

That's the point - apparently no one but him WANTS him off the hook.

Um, no -- the two women want him off the hook. They stand by their agreement and are fighting on his side.

I rest my case, 2 lesbians with an agreement that wasn't legally enforceable.

Jury out five minutes; you're guilty: your claim was false.

Next time follow the discussion before you rest your case.

[TX-Beau]

Kiss my shapely derriere. HE SHOULD HAVE DONE HIS HOMEWORK!

Dodging the point gets you nowhere.

[Kulindahr]

Oh spare me - no one but you lives in the libertarian utopia in your head. OF COURSE he should have researched it.

I think he should get off the hook to, and mayhaps he will, BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT!

Claiming after the fact that he should have researched it is easy. But if we all researched everything that people after the fact decide we should have, we'd be seriously hampered in just living.

[Kulindahr]

Kiss my derriere. HE SHOULD HAVE DONE HIS HOMEWORK!

Dodging the point gets you nowhere.

No, he shouldn't have to do any homework. The law is wrong and immoral.

And that is the point -- unless your argument is that whatever stupid law someone gets passed, we should all obey them without questioning, and/or that government busybodies should be allowed to butt in whenever they please regardless of good sense.

[TX-Beau]

And yet he should have done his homework before he sired a child.

[TX-Beau]

You thinking the law is immoral is no help to anyone atall.

Great, this law sucks the big veiny one - AND STILL HE SHOULD HAVE DONE HIS HOMEWORK.

[sixthson]

But Kuli, the lesbians signed a contract with the man to help them make a baby then the women expected taxpayers to foot the bill for the baby. The state wants the taxpayers off the hook and the biological parents on it. The state didn't step in because the three of them had a contract, they stepped in because the three of them expect the state to pay for it.

[xbuzzerx]

I have to say what I said in the same Hot Topics thread--- the moral of the story here seems to be this is why you don't do things like this over Craig's List personal ads.

[TX-Beau]

Lesson, lesbians who get your spooge off craigslist, probably aren't lawyers.

- - - Updated - - -

FUCKER beat me to it!

[Kulindahr]

But Kuli, the lesbians signed a contract with the man to help them make a baby then the women expected taxpayers to foot the bill for the baby. The state wants the taxpayers off the hook and the biological parents on it. The state didn't step in because the three of them had a contract, they stepped in because the three of them expect the state to pay for it.

Wrong, backwards, and wrong.

There is no indication that "then the women expected taxpayers to foot the bill for the baby". From the half dozen articles I've read on this so far, it's pretty plain that they expected to do it themselves, but then the economy went sour on them. The state stepped in in spite of the contract, which they shouldn't do. And there's no indication that "the three of them expect the state to pay for it" (see above).

[Kulindahr]

I have to say what I said in the same Hot Topics thread--- the moral of the story here seems to be this is why you don't do things like this over Craig's List personal ads.

I say the moral of the story is that the government doesn't want anyone to do much of anything without regulating it and charging fees.