Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And, what makes you think a man and a woman have no legal standing to enter into a contract?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?
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.
You cannot contract away the rights of a third party. That's the part you aren't understanding. You can't make a contract that binds a third party to YOUR contract without their consent. A parent cannot contract the right of a child to support from the other parent away. That right exists independently of the two parties. An individual cannot contract the right of the state to reimbursement for money expended without their consent. That right exists independently of the two contracting parties.
The turkey baster user is precluded from asking for money for herself, but she and the child are independent individuals. The state is independent of the contract. Neither are bound by the contract.
Actually, you CAN contract away the rights of a parent. The court does that quite often.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.
You cannot contract away the rights of a third party. That's the part you aren't understanding. You can't make a contract that binds a third party to YOUR contract without their consent. A parent cannot contract the right of a child to support from the other parent away. That right exists independently of the two parties. An individual cannot contract the right of the state to reimbursement for money expended without their consent. That right exists independently of the two contracting parties.
The turkey baster user is precluded from asking for money for herself, but she and the child are independent individuals. The state is independent of the contract. Neither are bound by the contract.
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?
Actually, you CAN contract away the rights of a parent. The court does that quite often.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.
You cannot contract away the rights of a third party. That's the part you aren't understanding. You can't make a contract that binds a third party to YOUR contract without their consent. A parent cannot contract the right of a child to support from the other parent away. That right exists independently of the two parties. An individual cannot contract the right of the state to reimbursement for money expended without their consent. That right exists independently of the two contracting parties.
The turkey baster user is precluded from asking for money for herself, but she and the child are independent individuals. The state is independent of the contract. Neither are bound by the contract.
Trying to justify the states attempt to force a sperm donor to pay child support is crazy. Trying to make this a gay issue, is crazy. There is so much crazy in that rant, it overflows.
I don't really care if you think being gay is sinful or gross, you should still be able to realize that the law is wrong, and the state is wrong. If the couple in question were a divorced man and woman, instead of two women, would it still be acceptable to you for the state to go after their sperm donor for child support?
The statement you quoted and called crazy said NOTHING about gay, and that isn't the point anyone is making.
The POINT is if two people of ANY sexual persuasion want to have a child and then agree to no child support then they need to leave the state out of it completely. The states don't have the manpower nor the desire to chase down child support cases where a complaint hasn't been brought. Meaning you could owe a million dollars in child support and if your ex doesn't complain, the state will never attempt to collect.
UNLESS the custodial parent goes on welfare, then the state has a vested interest in collecting child support.
Or are you suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable for one parent to not pay for a child so that the other parent has to collect child support?
A sperm donor is not a parent. And yes, it is 100% wrong for the state to attempt to collect money from someone who is in no way, shape or form, the parent of a child.
The statement you quoted and called crazy said NOTHING about gay, and that isn't the point anyone is making.
The POINT is if two people of ANY sexual persuasion want to have a child and then agree to no child support then they need to leave the state out of it completely. The states don't have the manpower nor the desire to chase down child support cases where a complaint hasn't been brought. Meaning you could owe a million dollars in child support and if your ex doesn't complain, the state will never attempt to collect.
UNLESS the custodial parent goes on welfare, then the state has a vested interest in collecting child support.
Or are you suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable for one parent to not pay for a child so that the other parent has to collect child support?
A sperm donor is not a parent. And yes, it is 100% wrong for the state to attempt to collect money from someone who is in no way, shape or form, the parent of a child.
He was a sperm donor ONLY to the women. To the state he was as much of a father as the guy who thought he was having a one night stand.
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?
Yeah they had to give his name when they turned to the Kansas Department of Families and Children. Kansas does not recognize same-sex marriage and therefore same-sex partners can't be held responsible for child support so the sperm donor gets a government call/letter. Their union is not a legal one in the state they decided to become a couple and parents.
Actually, you CAN contract away the rights of a parent. The court does that quite often.You cannot contract away the rights of a third party. That's the part you aren't understanding. You can't make a contract that binds a third party to YOUR contract without their consent. A parent cannot contract the right of a child to support from the other parent away. That right exists independently of the two parties. An individual cannot contract the right of the state to reimbursement for money expended without their consent. That right exists independently of the two contracting parties.
The turkey baster user is precluded from asking for money for herself, but she and the child are independent individuals. The state is independent of the contract. Neither are bound by the contract.
a parent can contract away their OWN rights. but not necessarily the rights of a child. even settling a child's personal injury claim has to be done with court approval because a child can't contract at all.
and knd is actually sort of correct.... if for the wrong reasons.... despite the vularity of its comments.
I can't in my wildest imagination wrap my mind over buying sperm off of Craig's list.
it goes on all the time.
FDA warns man to stop donating sperm over internet - HealthPop - CBS NewsCBS) The FDA has issued a stern warning to Trent Arsenault of Fremont, California: Stop donating your sperm over the internet or you're going to prison.
PICTURES: Sperm: 15 crazy things you should know
The 36-year-old engineer at Hewlett-Packard has been donating his sperm online since 2006, when he answered a personal ad from a local couple trying to have children, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. Since then he's fathered 14 children and has more on the way. Last month alone he impregnated three women through his donated sperm.
I agree, BUT that is not the current law, and never will be because of the reason stated above. The state considers child support to be due the child rather than the , in this case, mother. So the mother can not legally sign away the child's right to collect.
It's a sticky point for sure, and is reason why the guy in Kansas was a dumb fuck for not consulting an attorney who absolutely would have told him the same thing.
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.
There was no adoption. Why don't you inform yourself instead of continuing to look like a fool?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.
You cannot contract away the rights of a third party. That's the part you aren't understanding. You can't make a contract that binds a third party to YOUR contract without their consent. A parent cannot contract the right of a child to support from the other parent away. That right exists independently of the two parties. An individual cannot contract the right of the state to reimbursement for money expended without their consent. That right exists independently of the two contracting parties.
The turkey baster user is precluded from asking for money for herself, but she and the child are independent individuals. The state is independent of the contract. Neither are bound by the contract.
Sure you can, that is what adoption is all about. If you don't believe me try forcing any parent who gives their child up for adoption to acknowledge the right of that child to live with their biological parent and see how far you get in court.
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.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.
This seems ethically wrong. In both cases the child is the innocent victim.
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.
How the fuck does anyone other than the state look bad here?
Yeah they had to give his name when they turned to the Kansas Department of Families and Children. Kansas does not recognize same-sex marriage and therefore same-sex partners can't be held responsible for child support so the sperm donor gets a government call/letter. Their union is not a legal one in the state they decided to become a couple and parents.
recognizing marriage would have nothing to do with the obligation to pay child support. you always have the obligation to support your child, whether or not the parents are married.
so i'm not quite sure what you're talking about.
Actually I figured that people like you would be the ones selling it.I can't in my wildest imagination wrap my mind over buying sperm off of Craig's list.
My guess is that is because you cannot imagine anyone not wanting to go through a government approved checklist before they have sex.
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.
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?
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?
Wanna bet on that one?
Do I want to bet on what exactly?
That the state only cares about child support in welfare cases. They get a cut of every child support payment made, they don't need an excuse to steal money.
