Sperm donor to lesbian couple ordered to pay child support

[Quantum Windbag]

Child support is not a payment that provides the payer with carte blanche to visit the child. It's child support, meant to support the child; not to give the absent parent access to the child.

I wish people would get that straight. Lots of people aren't allowed to see their children for whatever reasons, and the concept that a child should be denied support because the one paying didn't get his 2 day visit is ridiculous.

I wish you'd actually realize that a lot...a fuck load...of exes lies in court. Especially women.

Makes me proud to be a woman.

And, in this case the donor had a contract with the birth mother where NOTHING in that contract is illegal or over-riding any law.

Too bad for her.

Let's see if KS can be as wise as VA in this case.

Their contract became invalid the moment welfare became an issue.

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

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

Hint, a contract was not that system.

No it did not. The only way a contract can be invalid is if it is a contract for something illegal, or if fraud is involved. Ask any lawyer if you don't believe me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Their contract became invalid the moment welfare became an issue.

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

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

Hint, a contract was not that system.

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

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

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

Trying for idiotic poster of the year award already?

 

[Ravi]

Apparently she CAN legally sign away the child's right IF a doctor is involved in conception.

Which doesn't protect the child.

Bet not.

Bet you had she went through a doctor and then on welfare, same result.

Or more interesting. Say the child is 14 and suddenly decides dad owes child support, what then????????

I would bet against the father in both instances; and to be honest not sure how I feel about that.

The article I read on this states that IF she had gone through a doctor there would be no question of the state trying to collect child support, per state law.

This seems ethically wrong. In both cases the child is the innocent victim.

On Oct. 3, attorney Mark McMillan filed a petition on behalf of the Department of Children and Families seeking a ruling that Marotta is the father of Schreiner’s child and owes a duty to support her. It said the department provided cash assistance totaling $189 for the girl for July through September 2012 and had paid medical expenses totaling nearly $6,000.

Schroller said the state became involved after Schreiner fell on hard times and applied for financial assistance.

“My understanding is that after being pressed on paternity of the child, she gave them William’s name as a sperm donor. The state then filed this suit to determine paternity,” Schroller said.

McMillan responded in a motion filed Nov. 1 that the agreement between Marotta, Bauer and Schreiner was moot because it didn’t meet the primary requirement of a state law that licensed physicians perform artificial insemination.

Marotta signed an affidavit in September saying he had no reason to believe a medical professional wouldn’t carry out the artificial insemination using the semen specimen he provided.

Kansas pursues child support from sperm donor - KansasCity.com

 

[AsheedMidrarwz]

Homosapiens are by nature heterosexual. These idiots who continually rebel against nature and push their new-age progressive agenda on innocent human beings and destroying their lives need to be spotlighted and prosecuted for child abuse just like anyone else who uses and abuses children.

Jesus's mother wasn't heterosexual

Yes, she was. She had other children by Joseph.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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

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

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

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

This was not simply an agreement not to support the child, this was an adoption agreement between two parties. The only reason the state is making this an issue here is that they refuse to dun a woman for child support when the other parent is a woman, they would have no problem getting support from the person who acted as parent to the child if she was a man.

 

[JustTheFacts]

If the couple has split and one of them is demanding child support, it should come from the former partner. What happened to the being treated like everyone else and equality?

Everything was fine until this couple who adopted lots of children decided to board the government gravy train.

More of the same from across the pond:

Gay sperm donor ordered to pay child support for daughters 13 years later

BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | Sperm donor to pay child support

Now that is a point we can agree on to. If mother and father adopt a child and father takes off, dad still has to pay child support. Why not "mother 2"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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

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

Aren't you one of the people that think the government shouldn't be in people's bedrooms? Aren't you one of the assholes that think the government should demand equal treatment based on sexual activity? Did intellectual consistency suddenly get tossed out the window because a man is getting screwed over here? Would you take the same position if a donor mother was being forced to pay child support to a gay couple?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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

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

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

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

Wanna bet on that one?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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

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

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

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

Unless you have some evidence that the mother wanted to abort this child and was unable to do so your comment makes as much sense as Joe's comments about Craig's List.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I wish you'd actually realize that a lot...a fuck load...of exes lies in court. Especially women.

Makes me proud to be a woman.

And, in this case the donor had a contract with the birth mother where NOTHING in that contract is illegal or over-riding any law.

Too bad for her.

Let's see if KS can be as wise as VA in this case.

Their contract became invalid the moment welfare became an issue.

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

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

Hint, a contract was not that system.

No it did not. The only way a contract can be invalid is if it is a contract for something illegal, or if fraud is involved. Ask any lawyer if you don't believe me.

LOLWUT?

You're wrong here friend. The state sees child support as due to the CHILD, not one parent or the other, therefor a parent can't sign away child support.

You simply can not. Now you can just not collect it, nothing wrong or illegal about not going through a court and forcing the child support issue. There is no requirement to do so. Heck even if you go through the court and get a divorce, you don't have to have a child support hearing, and yes you can have a private agreement not to collect child support.

WHich will mean absolutely NOTHING if a vested party sues for child support, The court will laugh at the paper just as they did here, and the state WILL attempt to collect child support.

By federal law once a custodial parent goes on welfare the state becomes a vested party in child support.

This is absolute 100% solid fact, not an opinion. Look at the facts in THIS case. The two people had a written agreement that no child support would be paid and the state said who cares, exactly as I have said they would, and exactly as they would and do do in every similar case.

Now, if you want to argue that that is wrong, that's fine, we can have that debate, but if you prefer to instead act like you know everything and refuse to acknowledge facts then there isn't anything for us to discuss, as you have willfully chosen to be wrong.

I welcome debate, I do not welcome ignoring facts to seem as if you know everything, when clearly you are wrong on this subject.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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

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

Against public policy? Does that mean that you suddenly approve of abortion restrictions? If not, shut the fuck up.

 

[Dreamy]

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

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

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

Aren't you one of the people that think the government shouldn't be in people's bedrooms? Aren't you one of the assholes that think the government should demand equal treatment based on sexual activity? Did intellectual consistency suddenly get tossed out the window because a man is getting screwed over here? Would you take the same position if a donor mother was being forced to pay child support to a gay couple?

That brave new world out there gets rather scary for those "vagina crusaders" who falsely believe the government wants control of their damn freakin' vagina.

All I want is the idiots to take care of it themselves and be responsible for what sperm they accept into it, mail order or store bought and the babies they birth from it, gay and straight women equally.

 

[JustTheFacts]

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

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

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

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

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

Wanna bet on that one?

Do I want to bet on what exactly?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

read my response directly below this post of yours.

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

The written agreement in which the father is absolved of responsibility. For one thing, even if the agreement were valid and the mother really did give up the right to support. The state was not part of that agreement and isn't bound by it. The reason why sperm banks can promise anonymity and freedom from parental responsibility is because the state agreed, in advance, to give these organizations the power to act for the state in making these agreements. Craigslist has no such ability.

States are bound by legal contracts between private parties unless clearly defined parameters exist that invalidate that contract. If I make a contract I cannot argue that the state has no standing to enforce said contract because they did not sign it.

That is basic contract law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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

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

Offer
Acceptance
Intentions (wrt legal relations)
Consideration​

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

Umm you also must have legal standing to make such contract.

Let's try something besides child support.

Suppose you own a piece of property and I want to use it. Now suppose KG and I draw up a contract which meets all your above requirements for me to use your property. IS that okay?

That would involve fraud, wouldn't it?

What makes you think they do not have legal standing for a private adoption?

 

[Ravi]

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

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

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

Aren't you one of the people that think the government shouldn't be in people's bedrooms? Aren't you one of the assholes that think the government should demand equal treatment based on sexual activity? Did intellectual consistency suddenly get tossed out the window because a man is getting screwed over here? Would you take the same position if a donor mother was being forced to pay child support to a gay couple?

Yep.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lesson here is don't do anything like this unless you have a lawyer advise you first.

Feel free to prove they didn't ask a lawyer.

 

[JustTheFacts]

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

The written agreement in which the father is absolved of responsibility. For one thing, even if the agreement were valid and the mother really did give up the right to support. The state was not part of that agreement and isn't bound by it. The reason why sperm banks can promise anonymity and freedom from parental responsibility is because the state agreed, in advance, to give these organizations the power to act for the state in making these agreements. Craigslist has no such ability.

States are bound by legal contracts between private parties unless clearly defined parameters exist that invalidate that contract. If I make a contract I cannot argue that the state has no standing to enforce said contract because they did not sign it.

That is basic contract law.

Okay, last response to you then I'm done because it's quite clear you're a know it all who is only interested in yelling, not in actually hearing facts.

The courts in this country have consistently ruled in favor of what is in the best interest of the CHILD. They have further consistently ruled that under no circumstances is financial support from one parent better than financial support from two parents. They have evolved that into saying that a custodial parent DOES not have standing to sign away child support, because the standing would belong to the child who later may decide to sue for said child support.

So, you can argue contract law all you want, if you and i sign a contract to something you didn't have a legal right to sign a contract to , that contract isn't worth the paper it is written on.

That VERY thing happened right in this very case that we are talking about and still you deny that that is the way it works? Amazing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Umm you also must have legal standing to make such contract.

Let's try something besides child support.

Suppose you own a piece of property and I want to use it. Now suppose KG and I draw up a contract which meets all your above requirements for me to use your property. IS that okay?

And, what makes you think a man and a woman have no legal standing to enter into a contract?

Which element is not met between the donor and the turkey baster user?

Your attempt at an analogy to this situation is fine, but I find it irrelevant as this is a contract between the man and the turkey baster user, not a third party.

and you would be wrong because every state in the country under the umbrella of the guidelines set by the federal government has determined that there are two parties to child support. One is the parent paying the child support and the other is the child.

I really think it would be that way in any civilized country.

It really is that simple, under our legal system the custodial parent has NO right to decline child support. And honestly , the case we're talking about is a perfect illustration of why. "I don't need child support, sign me up for welfare" is exactly the type situation the state was hoping to avoid.

Even though this particular case is pretty atypical.

Why the fuck are their federal guidelines for child support in the first place? When did said guidelines usurp adoption? Can the state go after a birth parent if they go through a state approved adoption agency, or is your only gripe with private adoptions?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Progressives hate these threads where their darlings, the lezbo welfare moms, look bad.

So they make it about all the reasons women should kill their babies legally. Because honestly, they'd be happiest if this lezbo would just off that baby and save them the discomfort of having to be slapped in the face with the supreme failure of their social engineering/eugenics experiment that is our welfare state.

The mothers look bad. The father looks bad. I find it hilarious that you side with this craig's list sperm donor.

The only person that is important in this story is the child.

How the fuck does anyone other than the state look bad here?