Sperm donor to lesbian couple ordered to pay child support

[Politico]

He is the father but this sort of thing will scare off all sperm donors everywhere.

Why? Some idiot whackng off for Craigslist strangers has nothing to do with the normal donor process.

 

[AsheedMidrarwz]

All three of them are unfit as parents.

 

[Katzndogz]

The contract was not illegal. The provision dealing with child support was invalid. There is a difference.

In adoption proceedings the state is a party to the proceedings. A state judge approves the adoption. This shouldn't be that hard to understand.

 

[jillian]

He is the father but this sort of thing will scare off all sperm donors everywhere.

Why? Some idiot whackng off for Craigslist strangers has nothing to do with the normal donor process.

the law might disagree with you.

 

[jillian]

the "state" to seek? or the mother?

? the state wouldn't sua sponte go after someone for child support unless the custodial parent was receiving welfare.

in which case they have every right to seek support from a biological parent.

The mothers partner offered to pay child support and was refused. The state is seeking child support agaist the wishes of the mothers.

because the state mandate is to always always act in the best interest of the child, what the parents want is irrelevant in that regard.

This guy should have consulted an attorney before spreading his good will. Simple as that.

PS Nothing is stopping the mom from reimbursing the dad for child support.

that makes no sense. the state can't initiate an action for no reason. there would have to be a basis.

can you link me to that?

 

[JustTheFacts]

The mothers partner offered to pay child support and was refused. The state is seeking child support agaist the wishes of the mothers.

because the state mandate is to always always act in the best interest of the child, what the parents want is irrelevant in that regard.

This guy should have consulted an attorney before spreading his good will. Simple as that.

PS Nothing is stopping the mom from reimbursing the dad for child support.

that makes no sense. the state can't initiate an action for no reason. there would have to be a basis.

can you link me to that?

Youre correct. There has to be a reason for the state to get involved. The reason is the custodial went on welfare. States can garnish child support to repay welfare so of course then become an interested party in collecting child support

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your agreement said nothing about adoption.

First, it is not my agreement. Second, it clearly states 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. Want to explain how that is not an adoption?

Him trying to give up his rights does not mean that THEY both adopted the child.

One of them was the natural mother, she did not need to adopt.

Did you even read the story?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

What? Kansas processes court ordered payments made to the state processing center. They then take a processing fee out of the payment and issue a check to the custodial parent.

If You Pay Support

You should stop assuming that the law that works in whatever state you are in applies to every state.

Where in your link does it say that?

By the way I did find elsewhere where Kansas does charge a %. Four of them to be exact, and that figure comes out of the total, so they don't add 4% on.

DO you really expect them to do it for free?

I never claimed they added a fee, I said they get a share of the child support.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

the "state" to seek? or the mother?

? the state wouldn't sua sponte go after someone for child support unless the custodial parent was receiving welfare.

in which case they have every right to seek support from a biological parent.

The mothers partner offered to pay child support and was refused. The state is seeking child support agaist the wishes of the mothers.

Don't confuse the issue with facts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the "state" to seek? or the mother?

? the state wouldn't sua sponte go after someone for child support unless the custodial parent was receiving welfare.

in which case they have every right to seek support from a biological parent.

The mothers partner offered to pay child support and was refused. The state is seeking child support agaist the wishes of the mothers.

because the state mandate is to always always act in the best interest of the child, what the parents want is irrelevant in that regard.

This guy should have consulted an attorney before spreading his good will. Simple as that.

PS Nothing is stopping the mom from reimbursing the dad for child support.

The mandate of the state is to act in the best interest of the state, not the child.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The contract was not illegal. The provision dealing with child support was invalid. There is a difference.

In adoption proceedings the state is a party to the proceedings. A state judge approves the adoption. This shouldn't be that hard to understand.

The only reason the state is going after the father is that they did not use a doctor to inseminate the mother, how does that invalidate any part of the contract?

 

[JustTheFacts]

What? Kansas processes court ordered payments made to the state processing center. They then take a processing fee out of the payment and issue a check to the custodial parent.

If You Pay Support

You should stop assuming that the law that works in whatever state you are in applies to every state.

Where in your link does it say that?

By the way I did find elsewhere where Kansas does charge a %. Four of them to be exact, and that figure comes out of the total, so they don't add 4% on.

DO you really expect them to do it for free?

I never claimed they added a fee, I said they get a share of the child support.

And ill ask two questions .

Do you think the fee comes close to covering the cost? Let alone makes a profit?

Do you expect the state to collect for free?

By the wY the fees are eliminTed if on welfare

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The mothers partner offered to pay child support and was refused. The state is seeking child support agaist the wishes of the mothers.

because the state mandate is to always always act in the best interest of the child, what the parents want is irrelevant in that regard.

This guy should have consulted an attorney before spreading his good will. Simple as that.

PS Nothing is stopping the mom from reimbursing the dad for child support.

that makes no sense. the state can't initiate an action for no reason. there would have to be a basis.

can you link me to that?

The reason is the state is trying to get money, which is the only reason it needs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where in your link does it say that?

By the way I did find elsewhere where Kansas does charge a %. Four of them to be exact, and that figure comes out of the total, so they don't add 4% on.

DO you really expect them to do it for free?

I never claimed they added a fee, I said they get a share of the child support.

And ill ask two questions .

Do you think the fee comes close to covering the cost? Let alone makes a profit?

Do you expect the state to collect for free?

By the wY the fees are eliminTed if on welfare

And I repeat my statement, the state gets a percent of the child support. Since you finally admitted I was right about that I have made my point.

 

[JustTheFacts]

The contract was not illegal. The provision dealing with child support was invalid. There is a difference.

In adoption proceedings the state is a party to the proceedings. A state judge approves the adoption. This shouldn't be that hard to understand.

The only reason the state is going after the father is that they did not use a doctor to inseminate the mother, how does that invalidate any part of the contract?

Bc that is the system they have in place for terminating parental rights and responsibilities. Now of course one has a right to petition to change those laws but until such time as they are changed it would behoove a person to abide by them.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I never claimed they added a fee, I said they get a share of the child support.

And ill ask two questions .

Do you think the fee comes close to covering the cost? Let alone makes a profit?

Do you expect the state to collect for free?

By the wY the fees are eliminTed if on welfare

And I repeat my statement, the state gets a percent of the child support. Since you finally admitted I was right about that I have made my point.

No sir your original post clearly was meant to imply that cse was charging a percentage and making a profit and thus had motive to collect child support other than whats best for the child...its okay to admit what we can all see

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The contract was not illegal. The provision dealing with child support was invalid. There is a difference.

In adoption proceedings the state is a party to the proceedings. A state judge approves the adoption. This shouldn't be that hard to understand.

The only reason the state is going after the father is that they did not use a doctor to inseminate the mother, how does that invalidate any part of the contract?

Bc that is the system they have in place for terminating parental rights and responsibilities. Now of course one has a right to petition to change those laws but until such time as they are changed it would behoove a person to abide by them.

No it isn't, that is the system they have in place to intrude in people lives. The system they have in place to cede parental rights to others is called adoption.

 

[JustTheFacts]

The only reason the state is going after the father is that they did not use a doctor to inseminate the mother, how does that invalidate any part of the contract?

Bc that is the system they have in place for terminating parental rights and responsibilities. Now of course one has a right to petition to change those laws but until such time as they are changed it would behoove a person to abide by them.

No it isn't, that is the system they have in place to intrude in people lives. The system they have in place to cede parental rights to others is called adoption.

Maybe just maybe if so mNy people werent shit bags who bailed on their children leaving the
State to foot the bill the state wouldnt need systems in place to "intrude" in peoples lives.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And ill ask two questions .

Do you think the fee comes close to covering the cost? Let alone makes a profit?

Do you expect the state to collect for free?

By the wY the fees are eliminTed if on welfare

And I repeat my statement, the state gets a percent of the child support. Since you finally admitted I was right about that I have made my point.

No sir your original post clearly was meant to imply that cse was charging a percentage and making a profit and thus had motive to collect child support other than whats best for the child...its okay to admit what we can all see

No it was not, that is how you chose to interpret because of your bias. I have clearly maintained that the state should not be involved at all, and never once tried to justify their attempt to collect child support by arguing it helps them with the cost of medicare. I actually brought up the fact that the state gets money to reinforce my position that this is not about the child as far as the state is concerned, it is about money and stupid laws.

Feel free to jump all over the people in this thread who claimed this was about defraying the cost of welfare, just don't lump me in with them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bc that is the system they have in place for terminating parental rights and responsibilities. Now of course one has a right to petition to change those laws but until such time as they are changed it would behoove a person to abide by them.

No it isn't, that is the system they have in place to intrude in people lives. The system they have in place to cede parental rights to others is called adoption.

Maybe just maybe if so mNy people werent shit bags who bailed on their children leaving the
State to foot the bill the state wouldnt need systems in place to "intrude" in peoples lives.

Nobody in this case bailed, want to try again?