Sperm donor to lesbian couple ordered to pay child support

[Jarlaxle]

I've seen that sort of bullshit happen....personally seen it.

How anyone who has passed the bar can tolerate doing "family" law without puking at least three times a week, is beyond me.

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.

Absolutely correct. Two entirely separate issues and a person will find themselves in a sling if they withhold child support over visitation or refuse visitation over child support?

No. A woman can do whatever she wants, a man must follow all court orders to the letter.

 

[jtpr312]

Ever hear of adoption?

Sure did, but what does that have to do with this. He didn't put any kid up for adoption now did he? You Godless a-holes are too funny. For purposes of abortion, a 30 week old fetus is not a person, but when it suits you, donated sperm is. Get real son, take your head out of your ass and take a look at reality, and your hypocrisy.

Where did you get the idea that I think donated sperm is a person?

Just curious.

I said he was the father because it was his SPERM he gave the dykes, you said have I ever heard of adoption, so it follows, you must think the dykes "adopted" the guy's sperm. I mean why else would you bring adoption into the post?

 

[jtpr312]

Screw him, he shouldn't have involved himself in such a deviant, unGodly circumstance to being with. Hope he has to pay through the nose and maybe that will discourage other men from donating their sperm so that deviant homosexuals can have kids.

Oh, shut up. At least the child isn't languishing in an orphanage - and at least he wasn't aborted. He has two parents who love and cherish him, and you don't give a shit about that, do you?

No, just stuck in the middle of a court battle between it's two dyke mommies and sperm donor daddy, typical nuclear family in today's liberal America huh? As for the baby being aborted, the baby never should have been concieved for a couple of dykes in the first place and as for languiashing in an orphanage, that's a joke, seeing that there are very few, if any, babies that languish in orphanages because there has always been more couples, real couples, that are willing to adopt a baby than there are babies waiting for adoptions. As for having two parents who love and cherish him, two dykes aren't two parents, they are one parent and her lesbian lover along with the sperm donor, and no, I don't give a crap about that sort of deviant behavior, or bad for the child deviant "family" unit.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Good call man. The Government has a great track record for managing things with immense success. Say for example the tax money they take from us. Look at how well they managed that... been to a DMV lately? Been to the Third World lately?

Um, yeah, I have been to a DMV lately. They had me in and out in less than half an hour.

 

[koshergrl]

The idiot was told he would not be responsible and he believed the other two idiots. If anyone is not living up to their end of the bargain it would be the two lezbo idiots.

By the way, one of the lesbian couple has now married a man. I thought gay people were born that way?

Still his fault for being an idiot. What sort of idiot trusts two people he met off of Craigslist for legal advice? LOL I mean seriously I know you're trying everything you can think of to absolve the guy of his own fault, but it can't be done. He's an idiot who should have consulted a lawyer.

Or better yet hit X when he first got the urge to go to Craigslist.

As for your second sentence, I in noway believe gays are born that way. Too many cases of switch hitters, or people who were born that way at age 40 or whatever, so not sure what your point was there.

So, how do you know the lesbians did not have an attorney write up that agreement before they put a notice on Craigslist?

I'm not seeing that in the link.

And, I'll say again, if the contract is a solid one...elements present, etc....the courts usually take contracts quite seriously.

I haven't much luck predicting what a court will do, but, as I said, I hope the KS court is as wise as the VA courts.

Are you terminally stupid, or what? The courts will not recognize a contract between two people that terminates some sort of rights of a third.

This is why parents, who come to the court with a divorce/custody decree that affords one parent custody and absolves the other of all child support resposibility, ALWAYS THROW THOSE OUT. They won't entertain them. Because the PARENTS DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT. The child has a RIGHT to support from both parents. If these morons had done this properly, then they would have gone to the court when the child was born, and the dad could have relinquished parental rights, provided someone else was adopting the child and accepting those rights.

Oh wait, this state doesn't allow that...so they could have moved to another state, or not come up with this arrangement in the first place.

They knew what they were doing, and tried to circumvent the law. Now the child is in need, #2 mommy has flown the coop, and they want to insist that the state pay what the father doesn't want to.

Too fucking bad. If you want the state to pay your bills, the state is going to make sure you pursue ALL assets on behalf of the child. They don't give a shit what the parents *want*. The #1 priority is the support of the child, for the sake of the child. The courts do not traditionally ignore that because the parents want to shirk the court, and the law. The law exists as it is for exactly this reason...so that when parents try to walk away from their responsibility, the child has recourse to the support they have a right to.

 

[Katzndogz]

The court will take the contract very seriously as to all of the provisions that apply to the parties and invalidate the provisions that don't, like child support. An agreement between two contracting adults cannot terminate the right of the child to receive support nor can an agreement between two contracting adults terminate the right of the state to receive reimbursement for the money it is expending on behalf of the child. The state was never a party to the contract. In an adoption the state is a party to the adoption contract through court action.

This happens all the time in divorces where a prenup terminates the right of spousal support, then extends to child support. The provision that spousal support will be upheld, but never child support because the child's right to support exists independently of either parent. That the couple are lesbians has nothing to do with this situation. It would have turned out the same way if it had been a heterosexual couple. The lesbian couple could have solved this easily enough. The child was born to one of the women, as the biological mother she is obligated to support the child. Had the other woman received some kind of legal advice instead of being turkey baster happy, she would have gone to court herself. If state law prohibited adoption by a same sex partner, she could EASILY, EASILY have gone to court and become a legal guardian. The state would have been a party to the proceeding in appointing her legal guardian and none of this would ever have happened. I used to do this all the time for same sex couples. Even in adoptions where one party would adopt, the other, precluded by law from adopting (in California same sex couples could not adopt), as part of the adoption proceeding, the other civil partner would be appointed guardian, in court, with a nice little court file all tied up in a bow.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Still his fault for being an idiot. What sort of idiot trusts two people he met off of Craigslist for legal advice? LOL I mean seriously I know you're trying everything you can think of to absolve the guy of his own fault, but it can't be done. He's an idiot who should have consulted a lawyer.

Or better yet hit X when he first got the urge to go to Craigslist.

As for your second sentence, I in noway believe gays are born that way. Too many cases of switch hitters, or people who were born that way at age 40 or whatever, so not sure what your point was there.

So, how do you know the lesbians did not have an attorney write up that agreement before they put a notice on Craigslist?

I'm not seeing that in the link.

And, I'll say again, if the contract is a solid one...elements present, etc....the courts usually take contracts quite seriously.

I haven't much luck predicting what a court will do, but, as I said, I hope the KS court is as wise as the VA courts.

Are you terminally stupid, or what? The courts will not recognize a contract between two people that terminates some sort of rights of a third.

This is why parents, who come to the court with a divorce/custody decree that affords one parent custody and absolves the other of all child support resposibility, ALWAYS THROW THOSE OUT. They won't entertain them. Because the PARENTS DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT. The child has a RIGHT to support from both parents. If these morons had done this properly, then they would have gone to the court when the child was born, and the dad could have relinquished parental rights, provided someone else was adopting the child and accepting those rights.

Oh wait, this state doesn't allow that...so they could have moved to another state, or not come up with this arrangement in the first place.

They knew what they were doing, and tried to circumvent the law. Now the child is in need, #2 mommy has flown the coop, and they want to insist that the state pay what the father doesn't want to.

Too fucking bad. If you want the state to pay your bills, the state is going to make sure you pursue ALL assets on behalf of the child. They don't give a shit what the parents *want*. The #1 priority is the support of the child, for the sake of the child. The courts do not traditionally ignore that because the parents want to shirk the court, and the law. The law exists as it is for exactly this reason...so that when parents try to walk away from their responsibility, the child has recourse to the support they have a right to.

Is it the dude's fault for not protecting himself better legally, sure? But the lesbians are also some trashy bitches for having a child they couldn't support and then sticking it to the person who did them the favor of letting them have a child in the first place. I mean who the fuck donates sperm expecting to raise the kid? That's not logical.

 

[AsheedMidrarwz]

I read that this lezbo couple had adopted 8 other children. This is sick. How can the state tell us they are concerned about the welfare of the cildren and then allow these two confused miscreants adopt children?

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ To me that is a very good question! How have they been allowed to adopt so many when providing for them is so much of a financial challenge?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[AmyNation]

^^^ To me that is a very good question! How have they been allowed to adopt so many when providing for them is so much of a financial challenge?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

They were more financially stable than many Americans. One partner worked and made enough money that the other got to be a stay at home mom. However the breadwinner has recently developed a serious illness that leaves her unable to work.

 

[AsheedMidrarwz]

^^^ To me that is a very good question! How have they been allowed to adopt so many when providing for them is so much of a financial challenge?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

They were more financially stable than many Americans. One partner worked and made enough money that the other got to be a stay at home mom. However the breadwinner has recently developed a serious illness that leaves her unable to work.

What did she do before she got sick?

 

[JustTheFacts]

So, how do you know the lesbians did not have an attorney write up that agreement before they put a notice on Craigslist?

I'm not seeing that in the link.

And, I'll say again, if the contract is a solid one...elements present, etc....the courts usually take contracts quite seriously.

I haven't much luck predicting what a court will do, but, as I said, I hope the KS court is as wise as the VA courts.

Are you terminally stupid, or what? The courts will not recognize a contract between two people that terminates some sort of rights of a third.

This is why parents, who come to the court with a divorce/custody decree that affords one parent custody and absolves the other of all child support resposibility, ALWAYS THROW THOSE OUT. They won't entertain them. Because the PARENTS DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT. The child has a RIGHT to support from both parents. If these morons had done this properly, then they would have gone to the court when the child was born, and the dad could have relinquished parental rights, provided someone else was adopting the child and accepting those rights.

Oh wait, this state doesn't allow that...so they could have moved to another state, or not come up with this arrangement in the first place.

They knew what they were doing, and tried to circumvent the law. Now the child is in need, #2 mommy has flown the coop, and they want to insist that the state pay what the father doesn't want to.

Too fucking bad. If you want the state to pay your bills, the state is going to make sure you pursue ALL assets on behalf of the child. They don't give a shit what the parents *want*. The #1 priority is the support of the child, for the sake of the child. The courts do not traditionally ignore that because the parents want to shirk the court, and the law. The law exists as it is for exactly this reason...so that when parents try to walk away from their responsibility, the child has recourse to the support they have a right to.

Is it the dude's fault for not protecting himself better legally, sure? But the lesbians are also some trashy bitches for having a child they couldn't support and then sticking it to the person who did them the favor of letting them have a child in the first place. I mean who the fuck donates sperm expecting to raise the kid? That's not logical.

The fact that we are talking about lesbians has exactly zero to do with the actions the state took and is irrelevant to this story, take your ant gay bullshit elsewhere.

 

[JustTheFacts]

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.

Absolutely correct. Two entirely separate issues and a person will find themselves in a sling if they withhold child support over visitation or refuse visitation over child support?

No. A woman can do whatever she wants, a man must follow all court orders to the letter.

Thankfully that isn't the case any more. Still SOME bias towards mothers, but nothing like there was 20 years ago.

 

[Si modo]

Still his fault for being an idiot. What sort of idiot trusts two people he met off of Craigslist for legal advice? LOL I mean seriously I know you're trying everything you can think of to absolve the guy of his own fault, but it can't be done. He's an idiot who should have consulted a lawyer.

Or better yet hit X when he first got the urge to go to Craigslist.

As for your second sentence, I in noway believe gays are born that way. Too many cases of switch hitters, or people who were born that way at age 40 or whatever, so not sure what your point was there.

So, how do you know the lesbians did not have an attorney write up that agreement before they put a notice on Craigslist?

I'm not seeing that in the link.

And, I'll say again, if the contract is a solid one...elements present, etc....the courts usually take contracts quite seriously.

I haven't much luck predicting what a court will do, but, as I said, I hope the KS court is as wise as the VA courts.

Are you terminally stupid, or what? The courts will not recognize a contract between two people that terminates some sort of rights of a third.

This is why parents, who come to the court with a divorce/custody decree that affords one parent custody and absolves the other of all child support resposibility, ALWAYS THROW THOSE OUT. They won't entertain them. Because the PARENTS DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT. The child has a RIGHT to support from both parents. If these morons had done this properly, then they would have gone to the court when the child was born, and the dad could have relinquished parental rights, provided someone else was adopting the child and accepting those rights.

Oh wait, this state doesn't allow that...so they could have moved to another state, or not come up with this arrangement in the first place.

They knew what they were doing, and tried to circumvent the law. Now the child is in need, #2 mommy has flown the coop, and they want to insist that the state pay what the father doesn't want to.

Too fucking bad. If you want the state to pay your bills, the state is going to make sure you pursue ALL assets on behalf of the child. They don't give a shit what the parents *want*. The #1 priority is the support of the child, for the sake of the child. The courts do not traditionally ignore that because the parents want to shirk the court, and the law. The law exists as it is for exactly this reason...so that when parents try to walk away from their responsibility, the child has recourse to the support they have a right to.

What the ever living fuck are you going on about?

That state sure as hell does allow a lesbian to adopt...but as a single person.

 

[JustTheFacts]

So, how do you know the lesbians did not have an attorney write up that agreement before they put a notice on Craigslist?

I'm not seeing that in the link.

And, I'll say again, if the contract is a solid one...elements present, etc....the courts usually take contracts quite seriously.

I haven't much luck predicting what a court will do, but, as I said, I hope the KS court is as wise as the VA courts.

Are you terminally stupid, or what? The courts will not recognize a contract between two people that terminates some sort of rights of a third.

This is why parents, who come to the court with a divorce/custody decree that affords one parent custody and absolves the other of all child support resposibility, ALWAYS THROW THOSE OUT. They won't entertain them. Because the PARENTS DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT. The child has a RIGHT to support from both parents. If these morons had done this properly, then they would have gone to the court when the child was born, and the dad could have relinquished parental rights, provided someone else was adopting the child and accepting those rights.

Oh wait, this state doesn't allow that...so they could have moved to another state, or not come up with this arrangement in the first place.

They knew what they were doing, and tried to circumvent the law. Now the child is in need, #2 mommy has flown the coop, and they want to insist that the state pay what the father doesn't want to.

Too fucking bad. If you want the state to pay your bills, the state is going to make sure you pursue ALL assets on behalf of the child. They don't give a shit what the parents *want*. The #1 priority is the support of the child, for the sake of the child. The courts do not traditionally ignore that because the parents want to shirk the court, and the law. The law exists as it is for exactly this reason...so that when parents try to walk away from their responsibility, the child has recourse to the support they have a right to.

What the ever living fuck are you going on about?

That state sure as hell does allow a lesbian to adopt...but as a single person.

and that is entirely irrelevant to this thread and not what KG was saying.

Look, if a man and a woman were living together and used a sperm donor in the exact same circumstances than the exact thing happened the state would have acted the same way.

Maybe you're just not understanding, but this is how it is. The state does NOT allow the custodial parent the forego child support because it is NOT the parent's right, that right belongs to the child, therefor any contract the non custodial parent signs saying no child support is invalid as far as the state is concerned.

Now , when you tie that into THIS case, as far as the state was concerned the sperm donor was still the father and ergo responsible for child support when the state decided to collect because they want reimbursed for welfare, which all states do.

IF the non biological parent (IE the other woman) had obtained a legal adoption it would have been her rather than the father who was being hit up for child support.

This has exactly zero to do with the state not letting gays adopt, or anything else to do with gay.

It has to do with the legal process of terminating the father's responsibilities was not followed. PERIOD

Now, if one wants to discuss should Kansas allow private sperm donors, or gay adoption or whatever, that is all fine and good, but is another discussion entirely.

Or when you make legal decisions do you just go based off what you think the laws should be rather than what they actually are?

 

[syrenn]

Absolutely correct. Two entirely separate issues and a person will find themselves in a sling if they withhold child support over visitation or refuse visitation over child support?

No. A woman can do whatever she wants, a man must follow all court orders to the letter.

Thankfully that isn't the case any more. Still SOME bias towards mothers, but nothing like there was 20 years ago.

agreed, some women are court ordered to pay child support..... and just lie men they don't.

Sad to say this poor kid may have a dead beat dad...along with a dead beat mother.

 

[AmyNation]

This kid doesn't have a dad. Even if the court forces him to pay child support, he still won't be a dad. And the kid doesn't have a dead beat mom. The drama llama is on the loose today.

 

[JustTheFacts]

No. A woman can do whatever she wants, a man must follow all court orders to the letter.

Thankfully that isn't the case any more. Still SOME bias towards mothers, but nothing like there was 20 years ago.

agreed, some women are court ordered to pay child support..... and just lie men they don't.

Sad to say this poor kid may have a dead beat dad...along with a dead beat mother.

A higher percentage of women who are ordered to pay child support don't pay then men .

The difference is there are 100 men paying for every 1 woman so there are more men who don't pay.

The term dead beat dad is a joke.

 

[midcan5]

What's the matter with Kansas, homophobia for one thing. What a dumb state, is it really possible that the red states are losing IQ points by the minute. Survey says, yes. Kansas is ahead on this count.

"Bauer and Schreiner had signed an agreement with Marotta releasing him from all responsibility for the child. The state argues in court documents that because a doctor did not handle the artificial insemination as required by state law, the contract among the three is not valid."

 

[JustTheFacts]

What's the matter with Kansas, homophobia for one thing. What a dumb state, is it really possible that the red states are losing IQ points by the minute. Survey says, yes. Kansas is ahead on this count.

Once again, IRRELEVANT to this thread.

Talk about low IQs