Sperm donor to lesbian couple ordered to pay child support

[Dreamy]

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.

I do not give a fuck what the state thinks, the only way a contract is invalid is if the contract is for something illegal, or one or more parties commit fraud.

As for your idiotic claim that no one can sign over child support, what the fuck do you think adoption is all about in the first place? Have you ever heard of the state going after a biological parent if the adoptive parents suddenly fall on hard times?

Private adoption is legal in Kansas, just like it is in every other state, The state might want to pretend that the adoption is illegal so that it can go after the biological parent for child support, but that does not make them right, does it?

If you want to debate with me we have to first get you over the absurd notion that you get to redefine reality to fit your perceptions. Until we do that, all you get is mocking from me.

I agree that the state is wrong to basically nullify the contract they had but states will always go where they can get money and because this union is not recognized legally they are treating the mother who gave birth to the child as a single mother who made a baby with a man. The other "parent" has no legal claims or obligations in the eyes of Kansas law I believe.

I do find it odd that the state of Kansas recognizes the adoptions that this couple did as legally binding.

Seems what screwed this sperm donor was being simply identifiable.

 

[Againsheila]

he should have gotten the legal protection at the time.

That is the lesson here.

What legal protection is that?

 

[AsheedMidrarwz]

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.

I do not give a fuck what the state thinks, the only way a contract is invalid is if the contract is for something illegal, or one or more parties commit fraud.

As for your idiotic claim that no one can sign over child support, what the fuck do you think adoption is all about in the first place? Have you ever heard of the state going after a biological parent if the adoptive parents suddenly fall on hard times?

Private adoption is legal in Kansas, just like it is in every other state, The state might want to pretend that the adoption is illegal so that it can go after the biological parent for child support, but that does not make them right, does it?

If you want to debate with me we have to first get you over the absurd notion that you get to redefine reality to fit your perceptions. Until we do that, all you get is mocking from me.

I agree that the state is wrong to basically nullify the contract they had but states will always go where they can get money and because this union is not recognized legally they are treating the mother who gave birth to the child as a single mother who made a baby with a man. The other "parent" has no legal claims or obligations in the eyes of Kansas law I believe.

I do find it odd that the state of Kansas recognizes the adoptions that this couple did as legally binding.

Seems what screwed this sperm donor was being simply identifiable.

Correct. If the guy had been an ignorant queer, he would have been able to do his damage on an innocent life and go on down the road free from any responsibility.

 

[Ravi]

My guess is that is because you cannot imagine anyone not wanting to go through a government approved checklist before they have sex.

Actually I figured that people like you would be the ones selling it.

Let me guess, you thought that because my reputation is that I always side with the government.

You guess wrong a lot. You come across as a nutter living in someone's basement making money by selling sperm on the internet. In other words, creepy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Yelling? I never yell on message boards, you idiots aren't worth the decrease in my lifespan higher blood pressure would precipitate.

If you sign a contract you don't have a right to sign that is fraud, which happens to be one of the to parameters I mentioned that invalidates a contract. The other I mentioned is if the contract calls for something that is illegal, and that would only invalidate the part of the contract that actually requires a person to break the law. We can explore all the case law you want, if you are honest you will end up agreeing I am correct, it all comes down to fraud or illegal activity.

Be specific now, what part of this contract involved fraud and/or illegal activity? Unless you can show that you cannot show that the state can simply ignore the contract. I, however, can show you plenty of examples of states being bound by contracts even when they prefer to do something else.

 

[Againsheila]

he should have gotten the legal protection at the time.

That is the lesson here.

Why should he need legal protection? If he has to pay child support can he sue for custody? The state has both parents of the child available, they just want to force him to pay because they are using laws based on 19th century thinking.

I'd fight for custody to get that child away from that fucked lifestyle.

I agree.

 

[Dreamy]

I do not give a fuck what the state thinks, the only way a contract is invalid is if the contract is for something illegal, or one or more parties commit fraud.

As for your idiotic claim that no one can sign over child support, what the fuck do you think adoption is all about in the first place? Have you ever heard of the state going after a biological parent if the adoptive parents suddenly fall on hard times?

Private adoption is legal in Kansas, just like it is in every other state, The state might want to pretend that the adoption is illegal so that it can go after the biological parent for child support, but that does not make them right, does it?

If you want to debate with me we have to first get you over the absurd notion that you get to redefine reality to fit your perceptions. Until we do that, all you get is mocking from me.

I agree that the state is wrong to basically nullify the contract they had but states will always go where they can get money and because this union is not recognized legally they are treating the mother who gave birth to the child as a single mother who made a baby with a man. The other "parent" has no legal claims or obligations in the eyes of Kansas law I believe.

I do find it odd that the state of Kansas recognizes the adoptions that this couple did as legally binding.

Seems what screwed this sperm donor was being simply identifiable.

Correct. If the guy had been an ignorant queer, he would have been able to do his damage on an innocent life and go on down the road free from any responsibility.

I doubt his sexual preference has any bearing. Just the fact that his sperm had a name attached to it and that made his sperm one with a potential wallet for the state to seek.

Lesson: Selling or donating sperm on Craigslist? Baaaaad idea. A motion to dismiss the case will be heard in court on January 8. If a doctor had done the insemination this would not be in the courts it appears. If I was the man I would fight on the inequality the state places on this aspect:

turkey baster versus clinical insemination.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

There was no adoption. Why don't you inform yourself instead of continuing to look like a fool?

Oh, wait....fools can't get informed.

Excuse me?

Court records show that the sperm donor, 46-year-old William Marotta, signed an agreement in March 2009 giving up parental rights to the then-couple, Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner. The agreement also absolves Marotta of financial responsibility. The state contends the agreement isn't valid.

Read more here: TOPEKA, Kan.: State trying to make sperm donor pay child support | National | The Sun Herald​

That is an adoption agreement. The state is attempting to invalidate it to collect child support, but that does not mean the agreement does not exist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Who said I had any gripe? I am merely pointing out the facts of the case. Now, can you concede that I am right about the facts about child support?

Because here is a tip for you, I don't agree with them going after this guy, and said as much, but the current law IS the current law.

The facts in the case is that there is a private adoption agreement on file, and the state wants to invalidate it.

Court records show that the sperm donor, 46-year-old William Marotta, signed an agreement in March 2009 giving up parental rights to the then-couple, Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner. The agreement also absolves Marotta of financial responsibility. The state contends the agreement isn't valid.

Read more here: TOPEKA, Kan.: State trying to make sperm donor pay child support | National | The Sun Herald​

Until you accept that we cannot have discussion because you are living in an alternate reality where the agreement does not exist. If, on the other hand, you want to argue that the agreement is invalid because of fraud feel free to show why private adoptions are inherently fraudulent while public ones are not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I do not give a fuck what the state thinks, the only way a contract is invalid is if the contract is for something illegal, or one or more parties commit fraud.

As for your idiotic claim that no one can sign over child support, what the fuck do you think adoption is all about in the first place? Have you ever heard of the state going after a biological parent if the adoptive parents suddenly fall on hard times?

Private adoption is legal in Kansas, just like it is in every other state, The state might want to pretend that the adoption is illegal so that it can go after the biological parent for child support, but that does not make them right, does it?

If you want to debate with me we have to first get you over the absurd notion that you get to redefine reality to fit your perceptions. Until we do that, all you get is mocking from me.

I agree that the state is wrong to basically nullify the contract they had but states will always go where they can get money and because this union is not recognized legally they are treating the mother who gave birth to the child as a single mother who made a baby with a man. The other "parent" has no legal claims or obligations in the eyes of Kansas law I believe.

I do find it odd that the state of Kansas recognizes the adoptions that this couple did as legally binding.

Seems what screwed this sperm donor was being simply identifiable.

It all comes down to money.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually I figured that people like you would be the ones selling it.

Let me guess, you thought that because my reputation is that I always side with the government.

You guess wrong a lot. You come across as a nutter living in someone's basement making money by selling sperm on the internet. In other words, creepy.

Creepy is good, it keeps people like you away.

 

[AsheedMidrarwz]

I agree that the state is wrong to basically nullify the contract they had but states will always go where they can get money and because this union is not recognized legally they are treating the mother who gave birth to the child as a single mother who made a baby with a man. The other "parent" has no legal claims or obligations in the eyes of Kansas law I believe.

I do find it odd that the state of Kansas recognizes the adoptions that this couple did as legally binding.

Seems what screwed this sperm donor was being simply identifiable.

Correct. If the guy had been an ignorant queer, he would have been able to do his damage on an innocent life and go on down the road free from any responsibility.

I doubt his sexual preference has any bearing. Just the fact that his sperm had a name attached to it and that made his sperm one with a potential wallet for the state to seek.

Lesson: Selling or donating sperm on Craigslist? Baaaaad idea. A motion to dismiss the case will be heard in court on January 8. If a doctor had done the insemination this would not be in the courts it appears. If I was the man I would fight on the inequality the state places on this aspect:

turkey baster versus clinical insemination.

I'm talking about the ignorant dyke who wanted a child for her agenda and ruining that innocent human being's life. The ignorant dyke is the source of this tragedy.

 

[Ravi]

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.

There was no adoption. Why don't you inform yourself instead of continuing to look like a fool?

Oh, wait....fools can't get informed.

Excuse me?

Court records show that the sperm donor, 46-year-old William Marotta, signed an agreement in March 2009 giving up parental rights to the then-couple, Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner. The agreement also absolves Marotta of financial responsibility. The state contends the agreement isn't valid.

Read more here: TOPEKA, Kan.: State trying to make sperm donor pay child support | National | The Sun Herald​

That is an adoption agreement. The state is attempting to invalidate it to collect child support, but that does not mean the agreement does not exist.

It isn't an adoption agreement. The only listed parent is the birth mother. Her girlfriend did not adopt the child.

 

[Dreamy]

Correct. If the guy had been an ignorant queer, he would have been able to do his damage on an innocent life and go on down the road free from any responsibility.

I doubt his sexual preference has any bearing. Just the fact that his sperm had a name attached to it and that made his sperm one with a potential wallet for the state to seek.

Lesson: Selling or donating sperm on Craigslist? Baaaaad idea. A motion to dismiss the case will be heard in court on January 8. If a doctor had done the insemination this would not be in the courts it appears. If I was the man I would fight on the inequality the state places on this aspect:

turkey baster versus clinical insemination.

I'm talking about the ignorant dyke who wanted a child for her agenda and ruining that innocent human being's life. The ignorant dyke is the source of this tragedy.

Bad parents are everywhere. My issue is with those who scream for the state to leave them and their choices alone and to butt out but then are right there with their pudgy money grubby hands looking for a government handout when they f up their own lives. This man has the state on his ass because these two parents can't afford their many choices now.

 

[AsheedMidrarwz]

There was no adoption. Why don't you inform yourself instead of continuing to look like a fool?

Oh, wait....fools can't get informed.

Excuse me?

Court records show that the sperm donor, 46-year-old William Marotta, signed an agreement in March 2009 giving up parental rights to the then-couple, Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner. The agreement also absolves Marotta of financial responsibility. The state contends the agreement isn't valid.

Read more here: TOPEKA, Kan.: State trying to make sperm donor pay child support | National | The Sun Herald​

That is an adoption agreement. The state is attempting to invalidate it to collect child support, but that does not mean the agreement does not exist.

It isn't an adoption agreement. The only listed parent is the birth mother. Her girlfriend did not adopt the child.

The dyke who got off totally free appears to be the smart one of the three involved in this mess. Obviously has learned how to play the system.

 

[Dreamy]

Excuse me?



That is an adoption agreement. The state is attempting to invalidate it to collect child support, but that does not mean the agreement does not exist.

It isn't an adoption agreement. The only listed parent is the birth mother. Her girlfriend did not adopt the child.

Her girlfriend who got off totally free appears to be the smart one of the three involved in this mess.

Yup. She just "played house". Now there are children paying the price for the choices these two made. Oh and a man who signed off but did not have the foresight or legal counsel wise enough to explain how it goes when the state gets into your life.

 

[Ravi]

Excuse me?



That is an adoption agreement. The state is attempting to invalidate it to collect child support, but that does not mean the agreement does not exist.

It isn't an adoption agreement. The only listed parent is the birth mother. Her girlfriend did not adopt the child.

The dyke who got off totally free appears to be the smart one of the three involved in this mess. Obviously has learned how to play the system.

Fascinating how you went back and changed "girlfriend" to "dyke"....

As far as the story goes, they weren't allowed to marry. Kansas fucked up that one.

 

[JustTheFacts]

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.

Once again you prove your ignorance. They do not collect a percentage of child support. Instead they charge a yearly fee. Usually to the custodial parent but not always.

 

[AsheedMidrarwz]

It isn't an adoption agreement. The only listed parent is the birth mother. Her girlfriend did not adopt the child.

The dyke who got off totally free appears to be the smart one of the three involved in this mess. Obviously has learned how to play the system.

Fascinating how you went back and changed "girlfriend" to "dyke"....

As far as the story goes, they weren't allowed to marry. Kansas fucked up that one.

I like being clear. This miscreant is not a "girlfriend". And they should not allowed to marry. Marriage is a man and a woman. It's time homosapiens stopped this new-age progressive horse shit.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Once again you prove your ignorance. They do not collect a percentage of child support. Instead they charge a yearly fee. Usually to the custodial parent but not always.

$25 per year, after paying out $500 in collected child support to the child/guardian.

Probably doesn't even begin to recoup the state's costs of getting deadbeat parents to pay up.