Sex

Judge Orders Sperm Donor To Pay Child Support

|

Public Domain

A Kansas court ruled on Wednesday that a sperm donor must pay child support for his offspring, because he and the mother did not conduct their transaction through a state-approved channel.

In 2009, Jennifer Schreiner and her then-partner, Angela Bauer, wanted to have child but didn't want to deal with the prohibitive costs of having a doctor manage the artificial insemination. They posted an advertisement on Craigslist looking for a man to donate his sperm. William Marotta rose to the occasion.

Marotta had no intention of fathering the child. He signed a contract with the couple to relieve himself of any parental responsibilities. He handed over a plastic cup of sperm, and Schriener and Bauer handled the insemination process from there.

Schriener gave birth to a girl, and eventually applied for her daughter to receive health insurance from the state. In an exchange that Bauer described as "threatening," state officials demanded to know the identity of the donor before allowing the child to receive any benefits. The state wouldn't accept child support from Bauer, since she is not a legal guardian.

The Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCP) contacted Marotta, insisting that he be legally declared the girl's father, so he could pay back $6,000 in child support and then make all future payments. The DCP and Marotta went to court in 2012.

Solidarity from Shriener and Bauer and proof of their contract with Marotta wasn't enough for the Shawnee County District Court. Judge Mary Mattiva ruled that the donor would have to bear the financial burden of his biological daughter, because he gave his sperm directly to the couple instead of a properly licensed doctor. She explains:

In this case, quite simply, the parties failed to conform to the statutory requirements of the Kansas Parentage Act in not enlisting a licensed physician at some point in the artificial insemination process, and the parties' self-designation of (Marotta) as a sperm donor is insufficient to relieve (Marotta) of parental rights and responsibilities.

"The Marotta decision 'appears' to be a case of first impression in Kansas, the judge said. That means a specific issue in the ruling hasn't been dealt with before in that court, and there isn't binding authority on the matter," explains the Capital-Journal.

Marotta's lawyer was critical of not only the outcome, but of the DCP's behavior. "The cost to the state to bring this case far outweighs any benefit the state would get," he told CNN.

Marotta announced today that he plans to appeal the decision.

Advertisement

NEXT: European Parliament's Gender Equality Committee Recommends Punishing Clients of Prostitutes, Not Prostitutes Themselves

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Always use a condom.

  2. So a guy has to pay child support for the result of a self service hand job?

    1. Every sperm is sacred

      1. So you favor spitters over swallowers.

        1. Either way, waste not want not.

          1. WARNING: This thread is extra cunty.

            Proceed.

  3. But the bitches outed the guy. Why didn’t they just say, “I don’t know, some guy on the street” when asked who the father was.

    1. Schriener gave birth to a girl, and eventually applied for her daughter to receive health insurance from the state. In an exchange that Bauer described as “threatening,” state officials demanded to know the identity of the donor before allowing the child to receive any benefits.

      They threatened to take away access to health care!

    2. Probably because they didn’t know at first that the state would go after the guy for money.

  4. So a contract is meaningless if the state decides it doesn’t like it. Rule of law? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    1. Has to have a secular priest (here an MD) bless the contract or it doesn’t count.

      1. The guild lobbied for that.

    2. The state exists to protect and enforce contracts.

      But only the contracts they approve of.

  5. Not too long ago I posted several calls by socon groups calling for an end to ‘anonymous fatherhood.’

    1. Put away your SNOCONZ boner, Bo.

      1. You know, I specifically mentioned this because I seem to remember you, and EvH, not liking those posts.

        1. Me? Really? Citation needed.

          1. Well, here you are complaining now, it hardly seems unlikely, does it?

            1. Somebody has a Bo in his bonnet.

            2. I am not complaining about ending anonymous fatherhood. Rather, I was noting your odd socon obsession and your need to drag it into every discussion.

              1. I get that you would rather not have anyone point out that social conservatives are hardly friends of liberty, that has been long understood.

                1. Why would I get upset? I am well aware of that. What I don’t get is your odd obsession.

                  1. Of course you do not seem much perturbed when people post a lot about progressives doing the same, right?

                    So it is not posting obsessively that you do not like, it is posting obsessively about your socons.

                    1. Jesus Christ you’re fucking ridiculous. I don’t care if you criticize socons, or progressives, when they are deserving of such. But it is a little weird how you are obsessed with bringing socons into every fucking thread.

                    2. Way to dodge the point.

                      But, for your information, I bring up socons in PM or AM threads or where they are brought up or discussed. I would be happy for you to point out when I have done otherwise.

                    3. They have not been brought up in this thread…YOU brought them up.

                      This was a statist decision, not a socon decision. This was a “the state is almighty and its procedure must be followed” decision.

                      How you get anything soconzy out of it is beyond me.

                    4. A statist decision in Kansas.

                      Yup, no socons in Kansas government!

                    5. A statist decision in Kansas.

                      Yup, no socons in Kansas government!

                      I guess they don’t get to post hoc fallacies until the 3rd year of law school.

                    6. One must not be critical of Team Red here.

                      You will lose LP Purity points if so.

                    7. Most here are no friends of Team Red, but there is a mighty vocal bunch here who certainly would rather it not be brought up.

                    8. Jesus, dude, why the fuck are you even responding to New Tulpa? Why would you waste your time?

                    9. What is more sad is that you habitually need to take the time to exhort others not to take the time.

                      “Hey guys, do not talk to him, he’s not from our school! What are you doing talking to him? Don’t you know we are all not talking? Why are you talking to him?”

                    10. Bo, you’re not one of the cool kids.
                      Now GET LOST!

                    11. Mary’s still butthurt that she got utterly punked by registration. She feels kinship with Bo. How pathetic. I love it.

                    12. Mary’s still butthurt that she got utterly punked by registration. She feels kinship with Bo. How pathetic

                      Yes, combined with the glowing support of the Shrieking idiot, it is a trollfecta!

                    13. I have no problem with it.

                      I do it when people respond to Tony and Shreek.

                      I wish reasonable worked like incif and removed responses too, but that was the major reason that incif failed post site change.

                    14. robc, we have seen you engage in some fantastic mental gymnastics to come away with dodging criticism of the socons whom you admittedly are sympathetic to. The gay marriage thread was classic. But perhaps you have topped it to claim that pushes for ending ‘anonymous fatherhood’ are irrelevant to this case.

                    15. you admittedly are sympathetic

                      You keep using that word.

                      Even thought I keep correcting you.

                    16. You explicitly said you were ‘sympathetic to social conservative lifestyles.’

                    17. There was no “mental gymnastics” in that thread. You just refused to follow the logic from my premises.

                      I refuse to argue based on other people’s premises.

                      And you got mad because you dont know how to use search tools.

                    18. “And you got mad because you dont know how to use search tools.”

                      Hilarious.

                      When challenged, not just by me mind you but by others whom rarely agree and hardly like me, to provide something resembling a principle on which your distinction was based, you asked us to google your past statements, that you were not going to take the time to re-explain them. You then hilariously repeated that line for like an hour.

                    19. And then I explained them, and you didnt understand.

                      Because the thread went to hell, just like it has every other time. So I decided, originally, to spare everyone that and just refer you to previous comments.

                      If you had done that, the thread would have been nice and peaceful.

                    20. “And then I explained them”

                      You never did so while I was still posting. But hey, do so now. I remember what it was we thought you were stuck on: you said you opposed the state expanding its recognition of marriage to same sex marriages because you thought the state should not be in the marriage business and such an expansion would mean more government. So we asked you this: when the state ran segregated schools where the white schools were better funded and more staffed, would you oppose striking the desegregation even though the result would be that all the minority students who beforehand had gone to the less funded schools would now go to the ones with higher levels of funding (meaning the overall funding would increase).

                      You kept saying ‘see my past posts’. For like an hour.

      2. I don’t really get why people get upset about Bo posting stuff about SoCons. I do realize why people get pissed when he derails threads by being pedantic and all that. And when he does that, I don’t have a problem calling him out on it. In this instance, I don’t see why there’s any reason to call him out for calling out SoCons any more than there is for calling out any of the number of people who constantly criticize progressives.

        1. They get upset because they like socons and/or are worried that recognizing socon liberty violations will somehow help progressives escape condemnation for the same. It is common for conservatives to ‘hang out’ at libertarian discussion groups, especially, during Democrat administrations.

          1. Beat that strawman, beat it!

            Now you’re just arguing with the voices in your head.

            1. Now you’re just arguing with the voices in your head.

              Uh, standard operating procedure?

              1. How about this.

                If I am ‘arguing with the voices in my head’ when I claim this, then WTF can easily show it by pointing to a single instance in which he, say, called out similarly someone like Immaculate Trouser for repeated (daily) criticisms of feminists, or others who do the same regarding not just feminists in general but ‘Jezebel’ in particular.

                In other words, if it is indeed the ‘obsessive’ posting about one group that bothers him, and not the group being criticized itself, then surely he has done this, right?

                1. How about I do it? I dont know WTF’s posting history, but I do know mine.

                  I repeatedly slammed on Longtorso for his repetitive Golden Girls posts.

                  Check and mate.

                  I dont do it for every single poster who is obsessed. But you are not unique.

                  1. “I repeatedly slammed on Longtorso for his repetitive Golden Girls posts.”

                    You are using this to expel the idea that you are biased in your outrage towards criticism of a political group you acknowledge being sympathetic to?

                    1. sympathetic

                      Once again….

                      And yes. Socon/golden girl/marcotte whatever. Somehow criticizing Marcotte posts would be okay in your world, that would be “balance” be criticizing his weird Golden Girl fetish isnt?

                      Its not about politics, that is what you dont understand. Its about being an annoying douchebag.

                2. If I am ‘arguing with the voices in my head’ when I claim this, then WTF can easily show it by pointing to a single instance in which he, say, called out similarly someone like Immaculate Trouser for repeated (daily) criticisms of feminists

                  I don’t follow every thread, but I can’t recall any recent article where feminism wasn’t the topic (or it was on OT post in a AM/PM Links thread) and somebody obsessively somehow managed to play 6 degrees of separation to make the issue about feminism. In terms of single-issue obsession, the only person who really matches you around here is ‘merican, and he gets treated even worse than you do.

        2. “I don’t really get why people get upset about Bo”

          Easy: Bo isn’t a member of the clique.

          1. Do you work in a movie theater? You seem good at projection.

        3. It’s just a little strange how he has to drag his socons obsession into every thread. I’m not pissed, it’s just odd.

          1. Sure, that is it. Goodness knows how often you take the time to point out when someone continually posts about, say, Amanda Marcotte or Jezebel being silly.

            Oh, that has never happened?

            1. You know, I never pointed out before how you do the snocons thing all the time either, but this article, which really has nothing to do with socons, and your subsequent snocons post, made me realize that the others are right, you really do have a weird obsession with socons. I don’t blame you for getting all butt hurt at me for pointing it out

              1. What is this, the third or fourth time you dodged my central point?

          2. In this thread, it was relevant. And like Bo said, why is it not odd whenever someone posts something equivalent about progressives? Socons and progressive are both enemies of liberty and I don’t have a problem with anyone calling either of them out. And it’s not like Reason enforces, implicitly or explicity, some sort of mandate to stay on topic. Just look at any thread where Star Trek, deep dish pizza, or the Cleveland Browns gets brought up.

            1. No it wasnt relevant. Weird judicial statism is not soconism.

              And we self-enforce, because reason doesnt.

              1. The judge was appointed in Kansas, where there is a socially conservative and Republican legislature and governor. And this is a case of the state intervening in ‘anonymous fatherhood’, a cause that I have posted on before that socon groups around the country have taken up.

                Yup, no relevance there.

                1. This is about Kansas ignoring contracts.

                  I dont think that is a socon issue at all.

                  No relevance.

              2. All he said was that SoCon groups have been calling for an end to “anonymous fatherhood.” I don’t see how that is not relevant to this article.

                “And we self-enforce, because reason doesnt.”

                Really? I think this is (thankfully) a pretty open website. If not, there wouldn’t be countless threads with conversations about Star Trek, pizza, circumcision, football, etc. (Again, I’m not complaining, just disputing the notion that the commentariat here polices to make sure people stay on topic)

                1. We dont police to on-topic, we police for all kinds of things.

                  And mostly fail.

                  But the policing goes on all the time.

                  You are policing but claiming that the people saying it isnt relevant are wrong and they should stop saying that.

                  I police Tony and Shreek via reasonable. And bitch about people responding to them.

                  1. I don’t really call that policing. I’m disagreeing with his post, but if he honestly believes it, he should go ahead and post it. The only thing I’d say deserves policing is people like Mary or American who just try and ruin threads with their insanity.

                    1. I don’t really call that policing

                      Fair enough, its more like a neighborhood watch.

                    2. In that case, hopefully no one wanders through the thread with a hoody on.

                    3. I was going to make a Trayvon joke, but I couldnt come up with the right one.

              3. “we self-enforce, because reason doesnt.

                Says the vigilante.
                Where do you get your sheets pressed?

        4. I don’t really get why people get upset about Bo posting stuff about SoCons.

          His obsession grows tiresome.

          It’s not his complaining about socons. Very few people here like socons. It’s his insistence that we need to berate socons and progressives with equal vigor.

          1. “Very few people here like socons. It’s his insistence that we need to berate socons and progressives with equal vigor.”

            I have never insisted on such a thing.

            1. I have never insisted on such a thing.

              3:57

              1. You might want to re-read that post. As the movie says “I do not think it means what you think it means.”

                1. Its not literally the same thing, but the same concept.

                  You are bitching because people bitch at you without equal bitching at others.

                  Its one level removed.

                  Im perfectly fine with you bitching about socon policies, I just want you to drop the word from your vocabulary, because I dont think you (or anyone) can define it.

                  Weve already seen this because you think socon’s oppose gambling and alcohol and that clearly isnt true, because many of them are catholic.

                  1. “Its not literally the same thing”

                    Here we go with the gymnastics.

                    1. That isnt gymnastics, its analogy.

                      Its the exact same thing, but one level back.

          2. Like I said, I’m not trying to defend Bo against all accusations against him. Some are valid. I agree that at times his insistence on always explicitly criticizing both sides can be tiresome. All I’m saying is that this instance, and others like it, are not instances where I feel criticism is merited. This post of the nature you’re describing (insisting on equal criticism of both sides)

            1. “I agree that at times his insistence on always explicitly criticizing both sides can be tiresome.”

              I have never mad such an insistence. Never.

              I have said that it is odd for a libertarian to get upset about someone posting about socon liberty violations a lot but never get upset about the same, or more, repeated posts about other liberty violators.

              1. You may not have used those exact words, but I’ve seen you post replies to people criticizing progressives with stuff like “well yeah, but the SoCons do it too!” In most cases that’s not needed, any more than people saying “progs do it too!” in response to your posts.

              2. I have said that it is odd for a libertarian to get upset about someone posting about socon liberty violations a lot but never get upset about the same, or more, repeated posts about other liberty violators.

                And its a strawman, because the people who criticize you, at least in my case, also criticize others.

            2. The problem with Bo is not so much his obsession with socons. That’s fine, socons deserve to be hated. The problem with Bo that he’s an overly argumentative law student shitheel who has no sense of humor, is clearly autistic, and obvious a virgin. In short, he’s a slightly less pathetic Tulpa.

              1. I don’t really disagree with that. I think Bo would be a much better poster if he took this site less seriously. This isn’t a courtroom. All I’m saying is that I don’t think his first post in this thread was one that merited the criticism it received.

              2. Shorter Warty: He’s not one of us!
                SWARM, SWARM!

                What a cunt.

              3. “and obvious a virgin”

                Here is what is amusing about this. In a ‘discussion’ with Warty and his pals Episiarch n’Friends Warty, upon finding out that I was a law student, exclaimed “I knew it, he’s a virgin.”

                Of course the natural response from me was, I do not know what Warty’s unfortunate college years were like for him to equate time at college with virginity, but mine was quite different.

                1. Epi, Warty, WTF, robc…sure are a lot of cunts here.

                  Whew! Smells like a fish factory.

                2. Kiddo, it’s pretty funny that of all the insults we fling at you, the only one you react to is this one. Maybe I’m wrong and you’ve gotten the chance to put your micropenis to use, but you’re not helping your case here.

                  1. Ironically, he just accused others of supporting socons because they objected to his focusing on socons. So by his own logic, he is a virgin because he objected to the virgin accusation. QED, bitches!

                    1. It is not the talk about virginity and sex I think that has me thinking of the massive hole in your ‘logic’ there Episiarch.

                  2. I react to most of your insults, you know that.

                    But again, to me the amusing thing is that ‘college student’ triggered in you the idea ‘virginity.’

                    Because we all know if there is one place no one is ‘getting any’, it is colleges!

                    Maybe you should not have joined the Computer Science fraternity there Warty.

                    1. Because we all know if there is one place no one is ‘getting any’, it is colleges!

                      I want to a college that was over 3:1 male:female at the time.

                      So, yeah, its not an entirely unreasonable thing. Although it was in a large city with a very large female college population, so anyone who wanted any got it.

                    2. upon finding out that I was a law student

                      But again, to me the amusing thing is that ‘college student’ triggered in you the idea ‘virginity.’

                      It really kind of ruins a joke when you have to explain it, but the joke was that nobody wants to have sex with you because you’re studying to be a lawyer. It’s in a similar vein as the classic lawyer joke “What do lawyers use for birth control? Their personalities!” The correlation wasn’t college and virginity, it was lawyers and sexual repulsion.

              4. “equally pathetic”

                Ever see them both post with the same timestamp?

              5. “HE HAS A PHD DAMNIT!”

                ahh, the good old days.

    2. You really seem to think that this site is populated by people who love socons.

      It’s bizarre.

      And you seem to base this on the fact that there’s not much talk about socons ineffective posturing–and a whole lot of talk about progressives successful implementation of the nanny state.

      You ignore the fact that the socons lose. That their positions rarely get beyond the ‘let’s laugh at the fundies’ phase.

      Do you REALLY think socons have power? And that power is somehow celebrated here?

      1. “You really seem to think that this site is populated by people who love socons.”

        No. What I really think is that while most here do not like socons, that some here are essentially (some are actually a bit explicit about it) conservative Republicans that, during a Democrat administration, like to dabble in libertarianism. Others are libertarians but think that socons are either potential allies against a greater evil or, as you do, are powerless and so criticism of them distracts from time spent criticizing ‘progs’ the greater threat.

        “You ignore the fact that the socons lose. ”

        A common way to carry water for a group is to argue they are not worth criticism. In many states socons get their way quite a bit. I live in one of those states.

        1. during a Democrat administration

          The few people that might fit were regulars during the Bush administration.

          Your failure to learn the history of the site rears its ugly head again.

          You sound like joe when you make that comment.

          And that isnt a compliment.

        2. Bo, you’re wrong. SoCons are nowhere near the threat Progs are to liberty. Not even close.

          1. SoCons kind of like it when you are morally wrong in some way. They really do. It makes them feel better. Progs hate you for not believing what they do.

          2. SoCons want to convert you. That can be annoying. Progs want to legally prevent you from doing reasonable things because they think you shouldn’t. The scope of interference is way, way more in the case of progs.

          3. SoCons actually often do nice things. The bulk of charities have been started by SoCons. Progs want to force you to give to what they think should be given to.

          SoCons try to stop abortion. Because they think your right to choose is taking away someone else’s right to live. It is a libertarian question, and they are choosing, in their way, the side that gives most liberty, from their perspective. Gay marriage is a SoCon issue. But, most are fine with gay civil unions. It is more semantic than anything else.

          Overall, put me on a deserted island with 50 SoCons over 50 Progs any day of the week.

          Plus, SoCon women can be really hot. And, a lot of them aren’t getting any at home. Prog women…please. The hairy armpits put me off, for one thing.

    3. I suspect they were probably railing about unwed mothers, not suggesting the state should go after sperm donors for child support in artificial insemination cases. IOW, something else entirely. Your comment is a non-sequitor, though it seems to have served its purpose in derailing the thread.

      But still, you’re a mediocre troll, at best. /Sherm

  6. Part of the logic here by Kansas is that after splitting up, she was a single parent trying to get Medicaid. The state decided that it didn’t want to pay for her health insurance if it could get the absent parent to do so. But the only person Kansas would recognize as the absent parent was the sperm donor.

    Note that this guy was screwed over despite the lesbian couple doing their best to stick to the deal. Imagine if they had actually cooperated in putting one over on him.

    1. Interesting. John, if there had been a gay marriage between the two lesbians, could (and/or would) the state have gone after the lesbian former spouse instead?

      1. John would know better than me, as IANAL, but I think there is case law to the effect that you cannot contractually relieve yourself of child support, since it belongs to the child and the mother can’t sign it away, or some such crap.

        1. But my point is: if Kansas recognized gay marriage and one existed here, would they go after the donor or after the non-custodial former spouse?

          1. Jesus, dude, why the fuck are you even responding to New Episiarch? Why would you waste your time?

            1. Take your meds Mary.

          2. It depends, in different states it works differently.

            There have been a handful of instances where different men were ordered to pay child support by different states for the same child.

            Basically in some states a being married when the kid was born automatically makes you the parent. In other states it depends on who the biological father is.

            That said my guess is that regardless the state social services agency would try to go after the sperm donor no matter what the state of the law was

    2. Note that this guy was screwed over despite the lesbian couple doing their best to stick to the deal. Imagine if they had actually cooperated in putting one over on him.

      The moral of the story:
      Somebody has to be fucked if there’s going to be a baby.

  7. Moral of the story: Never trust a lesbian.

    1. All lesbians are the police.

  8. Who other then David Crosby would knowingly give seed to a Lesbian couple in search of identity through motherhood? Aside from that, it is still fucked up.

    1. Who other then David Crosby would knowingly give seed to a Lesbian couple

      Uh, this guy and lots of other people.

      in search of identity through motherhood?

      Huh? Is that why people have kids? It might just be possible that they wanted to have a kid because they wanted to have a kid.

      1. Fair enough. You’re right. I was being a bigot. It’s none of my business about motive. A lot of us have kids by accident. Lesbians, when getting a third party donor are always by definition planning the birth, which is clearly different, but nevertheless, I intimated motive.
        I was expressing a bigoted opinion. I don’t know why each individual lesbian wants to have a child. You’re correct. Thanks for calling me out on that.

      2. It might just be possible that they wanted to have a kid because they wanted to have a kid.

        That would be great if they were not going to the state to provide for the kid wouldn’t it? And I have an equal contempt for heterosexual couples having their need to have a kid subsidized by the productive.

        1. I certainly agree with that. This whole mess wouldn’t exist if the state weren’t subsidizing people who have kids they can’t afford.

        2. We don’t know if they are gaming the system. We just shouldn’t have a gamable system. Kids are nearly always affordable these days. It really boils down to how much discretionary income the social welfare state feels is necessary.
          Kids are not un-‘affordable’. That’s bullshit! Kids might cut into discretionary income, but they are not unaffordable. Otherwise, children wouldn’t be born.

  9. This story makes me irate.

    I need to take a shit…better go look up what Kansas law says about where I can shit, how much I can shit, the permits required to take a shit and how much I can expect to be fined by shitting without government permission.

    1. Do not do it in a plastic cup and hand it to two lesbians.

      1. Is a sundae glass okay?

      2. Do not do it in a plastic cup and hand it to two lesbians.

        IMO, all your pedantry can be overlooked, Bo, because of the comedic genius of this comment.

    2. Isn’t Kansas warming up to be the new DC? I heard a rumor that someone wants to make it happen. But I figure that person has about as much chance as the guy who wants to split Cali into 6 different states.

      1. I seem to recall a few years ago The Nation or Rolling Stone freaking out at how Sam Brownback and the Tea Party was going to turn Kansas into a the embodiment of right-wing politics.

        Slashing taxes, attacking the safety net, more restrictions on abortion, etc.

      2. At one time, Meades Ranch in Kansas was used as the base point for standard vertical elevation measurements for the whole U.S., because it was the geographic “center” of the U.S. that was chosen. Now, the center of the earth is the base point.

  10. So, what lessons have we learned this semester, childinz?

    1. Don’t talk to authority, unless absolutely necessary, as in someone just stole your car.

    2. Don’t donate sperm, fooz.

    1. Yeah, those attractive-sounding offers on craigslist from lesbians? Don’t respond to those.

      1. Why would you? Fathering a child is kind of a big deal. It is a pretty bad idea to do it on the mother’s assurance that she will never try and hold you responsible for the child.

        1. It is a pretty bad idea to do it on the mother’s assurance that she will never try and hold you responsible for the child.

          That point would be more relevant if there had been no written contract. Granted he should have hired a lawyer to make sure it was a legal one. So much for trying to skirt the cost of “licensed” vouchers.

          1. He was stupid. An agreement is not enough. You have to have a legally valid contract.

            I think he could have an action in equity against the deadbeat lesbian. They didn’t come through on their end of the bargain to take care of the child and he is now paying for it. Not sure a court would buy that argument. But it should.

            1. You have to have a legally valid contract.

              & I guess in this context legally valid means, only when written by lawyers and agreed upon by the government…. otherwise I call BS.

              As I think if you and I entered a contract, say I’m buying X widgets per month @ Y dollars for Z months – your side is agreeing to supply the widgets on time for the money provided.

              Why can’t we – write a plain English language contract that we both understand easily, sign, and it be upheld in a court of law?

              Or is the claim here this just a case of “freedom means asking permission”?

    2. 3. Don’t respond to trolling sockpuppets dragging in irrelevant stuff about “socons”

      1. I really can not think of better support for my contention that for some here they must ‘handwave’ any attention from criticisms of social conservatives than that SIV joins in. I am not sure I have seen you do otherwise in my months posting here.

  11. Seems like the father/mother could gift the father/innocent bystander the child support money. The F/IB could then pay the child support to the mother/mother. This would fulfill the requirements by the father/mother/Big Brother state, without costing anybody anything they didn’t intend to pay anyway.

    1. Yes, the other lesbian could stand up and take responsibility for her part in this. Good luck with that.

      1. It doesn’t sound like either of the lesbians have any money to give, which is why the birth mother applied for Medicaid in the first place.

        1. No they just say the money was paid. No actual money has to exchange hands.

          If the state wants proof then make a copy of a check that you then tear up.

  12. Huh. You know, this could go both ways. Women donate eggs, too. And they get a shitload of money for those eggs, apparently.

    1. No, no, the lesbians can go both ways, but legal responsibility for children can not.

    2. Those are through state-approved channels, though. In this case, approval included doctor participation. I’m guessing it’s a lot easier to perform a home baby installation with a batch of donated semen than a donated egg.

    3. Seems pretty unlikely, though. I imagine that since egg donation is a whole lot more invasive and complicated process than sperm donation the contracts are a lot better. And then there are the sexist double standards of the family court system.

    4. It’s physically more difficult to donate eggs – requires medical assistance. It’s not like jizzing in a cup.

      A healthy egg goes for between $1500-$2000.

      1. That and a woman’s supply of eggs is limited whereas men have a nearly endless supply of sperm. Eggs absolutely should be far more expensive.

  13. “We’re kind of at a loss,” Topekan Angela Bauer, 40, said Saturday, speaking on behalf of her and her former partner, Jennifer Schreiner. “We are going to support him in whatever action he wants to go forward with.”

    Since you’re “kind of at a loss”, here’s an easy remedy: Pay him back.

  14. He obviously raped something. Children are not born in this world outside of rape.

    1. I think he raped a Dixie cup.

    2. Nonsense. Women can’t conceive when raped. Their body rejects the little spermies.

      1. And so the Dems hold the senate for 2 more years.

        1. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The Republican Party isn’t a bastion of classical liberalism is it?

          1. Yeah, cause one-party rule is working out so well?

            As I’m not a fan of the R’s either – but it seems obvious that more R’s elected would likely be better than the current state of affairs.

            Though I’d hate to see 2016 end with one party government for Rs, just as one party government with D’s sucked too.

            But this isn’t an argument in isolation – it’s an argument about a specific election under specific circumstances within the context of a specific time in history.

            Meaning – just because lots of libertarians may have a strong desire to see more R’s elected in national politics, in no way means libertarians want nor desire Republican rule.

            Just like if someone were to ask you – would you rather be repeatedly anally rapped or be forced to repeatedly have sex with goats.

            You answer: sex with goats.

            Does that now mean you want to have sex with goats?

            Or maybe, possibly, context is relevant?

            Nah – you’re right – both equally evil – doesn’t matter if in 2014 Dems take back the house and retain the Senate or if Repubs get both. I’m sure in both cases, the exact same outcomes will happen.

            Or maybe not…

      2. Unless it’s legitimate.

  15. This case is less outrageous than it seems. The idea is that they don’t want actual fathers to have a defense against child support by claiming “hey I was just a sperm donor”. So the state passed a law that said if you want to donate sperm, do it through a licensed physician who can vouch for you just being the sperm donor and not some dead beat trying to get out of the consequences of a one night stand. That makes sense.

    The problem here is no the judge or the law. The problem here is this guy didn’t protect himself and just donated the sperm. The law rightfully has a presumption that if you are the biological father, you are the father. If you are going to be the biological father, you better make damn sure people know you are just a sperm donor.

    The worst thing you could say about the Kansas law is that it doesn’t allow for cases where the mother agrees that the father is just a sperm donor. And yeah, that is a flaw in the law and injustice. But it is not a very big one. I have a hard time having much sympathy for this guy. And I don’t blame the judge for applying the law as written.

    1. “John|1.24.14 @ 3:57PM|#

      This case is less outrageous than it seems.”

      Color me surprised.

      1. That it is not outrageous or that I don’t find it outrageous?

        1. The latter.

          I agree with Bo on this.

          Its clearly outrageous and not a surprise that you dont find it so.

          I would agree with you, sorta, without a contract, but they had one.

          1. I would agree with you, sorta, without a contract, but they had one.

            So the law doesn’t have the right to require that some contracts be more than an oral agreement? I guess you object to deeds and the requirement that real property contracts be in writing now?

            So what that they had an agreement. They needed to have a legally binding contract. And those two are not the same thing.

            1. So the law doesn’t have the right to require that some contracts be more than an oral agreement?

              Since when is a SIGNED contract an oral agreement?

              1. So what that they had an agreement. They needed to have a legally binding contract.

                Did you not see that? Being in writing wasn’t enough. They had to go to a doctor for it to be valid. It is analogous to registering a lien at the courthouse.

                The didn’t meet the legal requirements for a valid agreement. It being in writing doesn’t necessarily make it a binding agreement.

                1. It being in writing doesn’t necessarily make it a binding agreement.

                  And that is the definition of outrageous.

                2. They had to go to a doctor for it to be valid… The didn’t meet the legal requirements for a valid agreement. It being in writing doesn’t necessarily make it a binding agreement.

                  Jesus fuck…

                  Procedures were followed…

            2. He signed a contract with the couple

              RIF

              1. The problem I’m seeing here isn’t the contract per se; the problem is the mother’s begging the state of Kansas for financial support, and thereby put Kansas in the position of having to verify her needs. I was outraged, still am outraged, but John clarified the point nicely.

                If the mother didn’t need or want support, but Kansas insisted the donor send her checks anyway, the situation would be intolerable. But the mother is petitioning the state for benefits, so of course the state is going to exercise a modicum of responsibility in shepherding its tax revenues. I don’t see questioning the validity of the father’s contract as exogenous to that purpose, particularly when, as John notes, it sets a precedent for any single mother and her deadbeat ex who want to avoid the court hassle by faking donor credentials.

                That said, I hope the donor’s case is borne out on appeal and the system ought to be rethought?I’m totally in favor of voluntary emancipation (financial abortion), but women using states as surrogate fathers is a problem that needs to be addressed as well.

            3. From the OP:

              Marotta had no intention of fathering the child. He signed a contract with the couple to relieve himself of any parental responsibilities. He handed over a plastic cup of sperm, and Schriener and Bauer handled the insemination process from there. [Emphasis added.]

              So there was a contract; the State simply refused to recognize it.

    2. The idea is that they don’t want actual fathers to have a defense against child support by claiming “hey I was just a sperm donor”. So the state passed a law that said if you want to donate sperm, do it through a licensed physician who can vouch for you just being the sperm donor and not some dead beat trying to get out of the consequences of a one night stand.

      Because rational people could never delineate between a father and a sperm donor with anything like, oh say, A CONTRACT!

      1. Because rational people could never delineate between a father and a sperm donor with anything like, oh say, A CONTRACT!

        Which part of

        The worst thing you could say about the Kansas law is that it doesn’t allow for cases where the mother agrees that the father is just a sperm donor.

        Did you not read or find beyond your reading comprehension?

        And if you want to throw out the magic term of CONTRACT!! You might try knowing something about how they actually work. Contracts that relate to really serious things like land and such sometimes have to be writing and filed at the courthouse to be valid. In this case, if you want to have a contract to donate sperm, the state said you need to do it via a doctor. That is really no different than saying deeds have to be filed at the courthouse.

        So again, this case is not particularly outrageous. It is about on the level of someone buying a house and never filing their deed and then later having the house sold out from under them. Sure, they had a contract. But sometimes that is not enough.

        1. You might try reading the article: HE SIGNED A FUCKING WRITTEN FUCKING CONTRACT.

          1. So what Rob. You and I can sign a written contract selling land or granting me a lien on land. But it doesn’t mean shit if we don’t register it at the courthouse.

            They effectively didn’t register their contract at the courthouse.

            1. And that is outrageous.

              I do contracts all the time, there is no reason to register them at the courthouse.

              THATS WHAT FUCKING COURTS ARE FOR.

              “Oh, you have a contract? Well, nevermind, this case is easy. Dismissed.”

              1. I do contracts all the time, there is no reason to register them at the courthouse.

                If you have a lien and don’t register it, it isn’t valid, neither are deeds.

                And there is nothing outrageous about it at all. If I buy land, I need to be able to know what liens are on it. The only way I can do that is run a title search at the court house. The only way that search means anything is if liens have to be filed there.

                1. I wasn’t aware this case involved liens on land.

                  1. Its one of the worst analogies Ive seen in a while.

                    If kids had liens on them, it might be valid.

                  2. I wasn’t aware this case involved liens on land.

                    It doesn’t. But it is analogous to it. If filing a lien at the courthouse is not outrageous, going to a doctor to affirm a sperm donation contract isn’t that outrageous either.

                    The point is that sometimes a simple contract isn’t enough to create a legally binding agreement.

                    1. I love that my 4:40 post beat his 4:41 post to the mat.

                      His entire post is null and void on arrival.

                    2. It is not analogous.

                    3. It is not analogous.

                      Believe what you like. But the fact remains “We had a contract” isn’t always good enough to create a binding agreement.

                    4. “But the fact remains “We had a contract” isn’t always good enough to create a binding agreement.”

                      Why do you always argue as if the fact that current law backs you up somehow makes you right? You’re begging the question, because the law is precisely what people are disputing. I can agree that there may be exceptions where having a contract is not sufficient by itself. This is not one of those times.

                    5. ^^^THIS^^^

                      Or, to put it more succinctly:

                      The law is an ass.

                      Its why I hate arguing with lawyers: most seem to start from the position that the law is valid.

                    6. Also, 2nd and 3rd year law students and recent law school grads seem to be the worst about this.

                      Those who have been practicing for years and years tend to get away from it.

                      I assume its a law school habit. You cant really argue in your class that the entire concept of the law is wrong.

                    7. Well that depends on the class/professor. The good ones will allow/encourage some of that but at a certain point a professor can’t let a class get bogged down with every individual arguing this over every issue when there is a lot of subject matter to cover. The smaller classes after 1L were in my experience more open to those discussions.

                    8. Well I’m a lawyer arguing from the opposite position. It is our jobs to use the law as it exists not how we wish it. Some people seem to have trouble getting out of that mindset in their personal lives and/or when talking politics but I think it would be unfair to say that John always argues that way.

                    9. Nah, I wasnt referring to John. Although he is in this case.

                      There is another (non-political) site where it happens though.

                      Lots of lawyers and law students, mostly in their 20s, and they cant seem to make that separation.

                    10. Yes, those irritable people I avoided as much as possible. Them and the people wearing “constitutional law professor for president” t-shirts.

                      One of the strongest pieces of advice my father gave me about life/marriage was to not bring the lawyering home.

        2. A. Unbunch your panties. I was slamming Kansas, not you.

          B. Exactly my point. I see no difference in the government requiring I file my deed (when I already have a signed contract) and the government requiring I need to be a sperm donor through a doctor (when I already have a signed contract). Both are wrong.

          1. Then you are a moron who doesn’t understand property law. We require things to be filed publicly so people can buy land with the confidence of knowing there are not any outstanding liens on it. If liens have to filed at the courthouse, then anyone who buys land can do a title search and have the confidence of knowing there are no liens outstanding that the buyer didn’t tell him about.

            My God you people are fucking stupid sometimes. What amazes me is how stupid you people often are about capitalism and how it actually works. You claim to believe in it, but have no idea how it functions in reality.

            1. Capitalism is a system in which the means of production are owned by “capital” and not by the state.

              Lien and deed registration, while possibly a good idea, are neither necessary nor sufficient for capitalism to exist.

              1. Lien and deed registration, while possibly a good idea, are neither necessary nor sufficient for capitalism to exist.

                Sure. But they are necessary for it to function. You can’t have capitalism without clear ownership of property.

                1. See Apatheist.

                  Also, Im fine with deed registration because I support the SLT, and, in that case, it would be important.

                  OT: But I realized one awesome side effect of the SLT. If it was done fed/state/local, getting X/Y/Z% each, the Feds would have to pay the tax to the states and localities for federally owned land (and vice versa).

                  The western states would like that and I bet the Feds would own a lot less land.

            2. At the risk of being accused of moving the goalposts…

              Filing your deed makes it easier to prove your property is free and clear when you go to sell it. On this I’ll agree.

              Selling someones home out from under them for not filing a deed, when they have a signed contract, is complete bullshit and makes my argument. You are claiming that my property is not my property without the government’s blessing. That’s cock.

              Just as it’s cock that I need a signed paper from the government proving I’m a sperm donor rather than a father when all parties have agreed to those terms, in writing.

            3. What amazes me is how stupid you people often are about capitalism and how it actually works. You claim to believe in it, but have no idea how it functions in reality.

              Uh, yeah, because without the state, there would be no such thing as titles and deeds.

              You really are on a roll tonight.

        3. ” if you want to have a contract to donate sperm, the state said you need to do it via a doctor. That is really no different than saying deeds have to be filed at the courthouse.”

          Um, yes it fucking is.

          Filing a contract at the courthouse merely requires a small fee to cover the cost of the paperwork.

          requiring a doctor perform the insemination adds THOUSANDS of dollars to the cost.

          It would be far more equivalent to saying that you MUST use a bar certified lawyer to have a valid contract

          1. So we are left with a state profession using the law for business. Lets see where would that fall on the outrageous scale? Considering that it happens about a million times a day, not very high.

            And going to the physician doesn’t mean doing full on IVF. You could go to the physician and have them do the turkey baster method for very little. They do it all of the time for people who object to creating embrios in the lab.

        4. That is really no different than saying deeds have to be filed at the courthouse.

          Fuck. If you didn’t exist, somebody would have to invent you.

          Yes, deeding property with the local government for the purposes of record keeping is exactly the same as throwing out an otherwise valid contract because of a totally arbitrary distinction made by the state.

    3. It seems to me that there is pretty good evidence in this case that the mother agreed that the father was just a sperm donor.

      1. The law doesn’t account for that. But as I say above, some contracts have to be more than just an agreement. If you agree to sell me your house, I don’t own your house until we file the deed at the courthouse. Real estate contracts have to be in writing. In Kansas, sperm donor contracts have to be done at a doctor’s office. That is really all that is going on here.

        1. “In Kansas, sperm donor contracts have to be done at a doctor’s office. That is really all that is going on here.”

          Um, that’s the part people are criticizing.

          1. No they are bitching that this guy had the law applied to him. The law while not great is hardly some huge injustice. I will say what I said above, this case is not as outrageous as it seems.

            1. “No they are bitching that this guy had the law applied to him.”

              Did you miss a bunch of posts in this thread or is your reading comprehension that bad?

            2. No they are bitching that this guy had the law applied to him.

              Criticizing the application of an incomprehensibly shitty law is exactly the same thing as criticizing the law.

          2. Wait, are you suggesting libertarians might be opposed to the credentialism and protectionism caused by occupational licensing?

    4. I’d say that there is a problem with a law in that it doesn’t recognize the contract. You don’t need a licensing system to look at the contract, determine it wasn’t made under duress or something, examine if the circumstances indicate it was some kind of fraud to avoid child support or something and then act accordingly.

      1. I’d say that there is a problem with a law in that it doesn’t recognize the contract.

        That is true. The Kansas law says that to have a valid contract, you have to go to a doctor and do it. They didn’t do that, even though they knew or should have known the law required that.

        The question is, is requiring sperm contracts be executed via a doctor really an outrageous restraint on contracts? I don’t see as such. We are talking about a party renouncing their entire responsibility towards a child. I can see where the state would want to require people doing that go through a third party so that there is no doubt that is in fact what is occurring.

        1. The doctor part seems bizarre. If the law stated you had to go before a judge, that would make perfect sense, but what does a doctor have to say about legal responsibilities?

          1. That is a good point. The doctor part is just the fertility doctors getting their graft.

            The law is typical state graft. But it is not that big of a nut punch all things considered.

          2. Not even a judge – a notary public should have been sufficient.

        2. The question is, is requiring sperm contracts be executed via a doctor really an outrageous restraint on contracts?

          Ridiculous. You might as well say there has to be a doctor present before you buy a woman an adult beverage.

          1. There is nothing ridiculous about it at all. Absent this contract, he is legally responsible to support any biological child he has. So it makes sense that we should make damn sure that is in fact what is happening here.

            As Warty points out below, the better way would be to make them go before a judge rather than a doctor. And to that extent the law is a typical piece of graft you see in state laws.

            But even at that, the issue here is the graft not the OMG the guy is stuck paying for his own kid. Tough shit. He should have paid more attention.

        3. I don’t see him as renouncing his responsibility to his child but selling his semen. The child didn’t exist yet when the made the contract. What they did with it after that is none of his concern, they could have drank it if they wanted to.

          1. It is totally that. Unless you have a really good explanation, you are responsible for supporting your biological children.

            1. He has a really good explanation. Ignoring whether the restrictions on contracts such as the real property one you used are good or not, I don’t see how this should be treated any different than any other commercial contract for the sale of goods (the goods in this case being semen). If they had gotten knocked up and then tried to transfer the responsibility of the child that would be a good reason for further scrutiny and restrictions.

              Sperm are gametes, not children.

              1. I think it should be treated differently. The doctor part is stupid and just doctors engaging in the typical theft. But I don’t see any problem at all with making them go before a judge or a notary and swear under oath “yes we really are doing this as a sperm donor”.

                Parenage is a big deal. And it effects a third party. The kid wasn’t a party to this deal. But he is going to be drastically effected by its enforcement. For that reason, I don’t see a problem with courts saying you need to do better than produce a contract.

                But that is one way of looking at it. Maybe a written contract is good enough. The point is, neither way is outrageous and the result in this case is not particularly outrageous or worthy of note.

                1. Well I agree that their is extra outrage because people think this will affect anonymous sperm donations which is unlikely to happen. Also agree that this guy was a moron for the way he went about it (even if I don’t think he should be punished for it).

                  You did start off this string of posts by saying that “The problem here is no the judge or the law.” Which is what I and others have objected to. Whatever way the law should be structured it should be flexible enough to handle situations like this. Contracts law relies heavily on common law and I don’t like how the statutory law here has prevent a judge from coming to a common sense decision.

                  In any case you seem to have backed away from the idea that the problem is not with the law so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

                  1. I will back up and say the law requiring you go to a doctor is stupid. So yes, the law is the problem here. But not the judge.

        4. is requiring sperm contracts be executed via a doctor really an outrageous restraint on contracts?

          Yes.

          The only reason I dont think filing of deeds is also outrageous is my weird views on land and my support for the SLT.

          1. Get rid of the requirement of filing deeds publicly and watch the value of land go through the floor.

            The ability to have clear title in land is fundamental requirement for a functioning economy. Short of full on communism, there are few things you could do to destroy wealth more effectively that get rid of the requirement to file deeds and liens publicly and thus cloud the title of every piece of land in America.

            1. Deed registration could very easily be handled by private services and people who choose not to use them or require proof of deed from a respectable deed registration service would be doing so at their own risk.

              1. Is there anything that Underwriters Lab and Kosher labeling isnt a good analogy for?

                A: yes, but they still apply a surprisingly large amount of time.

              2. Except that there wouldn’t be one place you could go to get all of the information. How do I know which company the lien is filed with? I would have to go to every one of them and even then I couldn’t be totally sure.

                It is about a hundred times more efficient to just have the court maintain the official records. Then I only have to go to one place and I am 100% certain I saw all of the liens.

                Sometimes having the government do something makes sense. It is not often. But sometimes.

                1. Apatheist said “deeds”, he didnt mention liens.

                  1. Deeds don’t matter if you don’t have the liens.

                  2. And further, deeds can be for part of t he property like a share of the mineral wealth and such. You need to have all of t he information in one place.

                2. “Except that there wouldn’t be one place you could go to get all of the information. How do I know which company the lien is filed with? I would have to go to every one of them and even then I couldn’t be totally sure.”

                  The market will provide.

                  In such an environment other companies who specialized in title searches across all title issuing companies would launch

                3. Come on John, you can’t imagine private companies being more efficient that government? This isn’t some radical anarcho-capitalist idea, deed registration services is very easy to imagine. You would know where it is filed because that would be part of the purchasing process. If you don’t trust that the deed registration company provided has done full due diligence on the titles registered with it then don’t purchase the property. I imagine many of these services would provide a warranty/guarantee of their assurances. I certainly would expect all these things before making the purchase.

                  1. Hell, even with government filings, title search companies still exist. And title insurance.

                    Apparently you cant just count on the government to know who really has the valid deed.

                  2. Also, I’m sure you are aware that their are lawyer who make a good living examining title (especially things like mineral rights) belying that fact that it is some efficient simple process. No reason to believe that those services couldn’t be done by the deed registration companies as part of their product. And far cheaper I would bet.

      2. I have to agree with John on this. I deal with contracts in business all the time. A contract cannot alter standing law. For example, my employment contract states that the most vacation I can rollover to the next year is 40 hours (HQ is in MD). California law requires that employees be able to rollover up to 175% of their vacation accrual. With respect to this point, the company’s terms in the employment contract are not valid. In this case, that is what they tried to do – the law requires the donation to be “managed.” They tried to go around that. It sucks for this guy, I agree.

        To be clear, I’m no fan of the law in this case. I think that it should be as easy as taking their contract down to the courthouse and having it notarized (purely to prevent duress claims), rather than have an agent of the state bless it. Additionally, if at any point the Father/Mother had provided financial, physical or other support, he/she would then become the pater familias. You want it, you support it. And yes, finally, if aid wasn’t available from the state (which it shouldn’t be), none of this would matter.

        1. An employment contract is not analogous to a private sales contract between private, consenting adults.

          There is no reason, until this court case, for anyone in Kansas to think they need a lawyer to research laws, all to be allowed to give someone sperm, because the people involved in the transaction aren’t smart enough to write a simple contract, understand it, agree to the terms, and sign it.

          Nope – citizens aren’t allowed to do things like associate with whom they want nor set the conditions for those associations.

          Only the benevolent government, that perfect force of good in a world of evil individuals, is competent enough to “allow” private individuals privately engage with each other in commercial economic transactions through contracts they write themselves.

          BS

    5. Neither party is particularly sympathetic; the guy for his naivete about state sperm donor liability law before handing his sperm over to any woman in any fashion for any reason, and the hideous ham-beast lesbians who bore a kid they could not afford to care for, then groped around for the teat of the understandably irritated Kansas taxpayer to raise it.

    6. The idea is that they don’t want actual fathers to have a defense against child support by claiming “hey I was just a sperm donor”.

      Then they can require that the donor have a signed contract stating exactly that, which this donor does.

      if you want to donate sperm, do it through a licensed physician

      Because it’s impossible to get pregnant without spending the money on a cartel-approved physician.

      -jcr

      1. Because it’s impossible to get pregnant without spending the money on a cartel-approved physician.

        Yes, the only real bitch here is the graft on the part of the physicians. But that doesn’t make this guy a victim or this particular case outrageous.

        Gee, a profession uses state law to get extra business. OMG, I am shocked.

    7. I think there is a bit more of a flaw with the law than that. Sometimes a one night stand is a sperm donor. Some women want to get pregnant without being attached to a man. And might lie about birth control or something like that to achieve that goal. I don’t think that man should be on the hook if the woman who used him as a sperm donor later goes on some sort of public assistance.

      I have a lot of sympathy for the guy. He thought he was being nice and helping some people out and now he’s got this albatross around his neck for the next 18 years. Seems a little disproportionate for the crime of failing to get the right kind of contract.

      1. Sometimes a one night stand is a sperm donor.

        Ah no. If you father a child, you should be on the hook to pay for it. Just like a woman who gets pregnant is responsible for the kid, the man who gets her pregnant is just as responsible.

        1. You don’t think that the woman’s intention to get pregnant and raise the child with no assistance from the biological father is significant? Even if the woman makes it clear that she just wants to get knocked up and expects no further help or support for the child the man is still on the hook? That doesn’t seem right. People should be allowed to make agreements like that and then be held to them.

          1. You don’t think that the woman’s intention to get pregnant and raise the child with no assistance from the biological father is significant?

            Nope. She can’t relieve you of your responsibility. Your responsibility is between you and the child.

            Think of it from the child’s perspective. The child is entitled to support from both parents. How does the mother have the right to give that away before the child is born? It is the child’s right to support not the mother’s.

            1. The child is entitled to support from both parents.

              I guess that’s the part that is not obviously true to me.

              Being a parent with all of the usual parental obligations has to do with more than just whose genes the kid has. There are lots of situations where that is not the case already: Adoption, surrogacy, sperm or egg donors with the proper contracts in place. So I think our disagreement is just on how formally those agreements need to be made.

        2. If you father a child, you should be on the hook to pay for it.

          Sorry John, but fathering a child != masturbating in a cup and then giving it to a fertile female.

      2. Some women want to get pregnant without being attached to a man. And might lie about birth control or something like that to achieve that goal. I don’t think that man should be on the hook if the woman who used him as a sperm donor later goes on some sort of public assistance.

        I disagree. If the man doesn’t want to be a father, he should wear a condom, get snipped, or not have sex in the first place. If he does want to be a father, he should be required to support the child he helped create.

        1. he should be required to support the child he helped create.

          I don’t see why. People make agreements to be surrogate parents. They aren’t later held liable for supporting the child. I don’t see why more informal oral contracts shouldn’t work that way too.

          1. & what about adoption?

            How does it work in a world where parents A (or parent A) wants to give their child up for adoption and parents B actively want to care for that child.

            10 years later, 1 parent from parent B dies, other parent seeks medicaid… why can’t the biological parents be sued?

            Oh right – because in most cases the government gave permission.

            Yeah, I’m wrong – completely my fault – I just had to think it about correctly. For a second or two I almost forgot that freedom means asking permission from the correct authorities.

  16. They posted an advertisement on Craigslist looking for a man to donate his sperm.

    And something went wrong? Huh.

  17. Ironically, I have heard but cannot confirm that Judge Mary Mattiva was an under the table sperm donor in the past. Isn’t that weird?

  18. Of course, the primary solution would be to eliminate the government aid program and this wouldnt have been an issue at all.

    1. Bingo.

      -jcr

  19. Single women not otherwise bound by a legal agreement should be the sole responsible party of any children they produce.

    I’ve just solved this case, gold-digga condom-holers, and psycho one-night stands suing for custody of a child they had no interest in otherwise. Men can be compensated to the extent they were involved. The one-night-stand, for example, would be due the amount the average sperm donation is worth in the state the coitus occurred.

    1. I see someone hates women.

    2. Easy solution: vasectomy. They’re reversible now.

    3. As has been written elsewhere, the father’s responsibility is to the child, not the mother.

      Here is a solution, be more choosy about where you dip your wick.

  20. The state now owns your sperm.

  21. Wow – this was like an MNG thread fucking of old. Good times…

    1. PHD!!!!

  22. It’s too bad – I really liked KS when we visited. Almost went to work there.

    Isn’t KS also the state with the psycho bitch AG (or whomever) who was crucifying pain doctors?

    Yeah, that’s too bad….

    *scratches KS off list of potential states to move to*

    1. Just don’t get drunk and agree to donate sperm to some lesbian couple who buys you a couple of drinks and you will be fine.

      1. Just don’t get drunk and agree to donate sperm to some lesbian couple who buys you a couple of drinks do anything ever which doesn’t have prior written approval from your superiors and you will be fine.

        FTFY

  23. The precedent being set here is bad. Evidently, they aren’t honoring the contract because they argue that it would only be valid if the entire process happened through state approved channels.

    So, if I were to be provably drugged and raped or otherwise coerced to donate sperm, or acquired without my knowledge (like from a used condom), or stolen from a sperm bank, it doesn’t matter? It seems that the Kansas logic reported here would indicate that since it didn’t happen through state approved channels, I’m the father, and have to pay.

    That seems ridiculous.

    1. That is an interesting point. But I am unaware of any state that considers coercion as a means of voiding parental responsibilities.

      For example, a woman who is raped can’t abandon her child.

      1. But a female has control over the decision to have the child. Also, she can unilaterally put the child up for adoption. A woman has ways out of the financial burden. A man has no such recourse. I’m not talking about mild coercion which happens almost all the time, I’m talking about gun-to-the-head type stuff.

        1. Also, she can unilaterally put the child up for adoption.

          I assume you meant this in the context of rape only. Though I bet their have been rapists who tried to stop an adoption before.

          1. That’s where I was going with that. There are other possibilities however. If the bio father’s name or whereabouts are unknown or successfully claimed to be unknown, then that’s also unilateral.

  24. Sometimes eggs have to be broken to make an omelet. I would imagine that as news of this gets out that fear of being held liable as a sperm donor (both legal and illegal) will instigate the removal of such regulations.

  25. Let’s put it this way: the mother discloses to the state that the father was a donor, but they have only their verbal agreement and later testimony to substantiate her claim. Kansas agrees, and now taxpayers are on the hook for the kid. Is this problematic?

    Let’s say instead that the parents did draw up a contract, but the state has no way to verify whether the father was a donor or an actual part of the family who is now, with the mother’s acquiescence, attempting to duck financial responsibility. Some investigation by DCP reveals that the father has in fact been living with the mother until recently. They deny her application and assess a child support claim against the father. Problematic?

    Then we have a case in which the mother and father have signed a contract attesting to his status as donor, and the state cannot prove that the donor has played a paternal role in the child’s life. DCP decides otherwise, charges the donor for child support and back payments, and the court affirms their decision. I think we all agree that this is problematic, but this is just one of several suboptimal possible outcomes. I hope it’s corrected, but I don’t see it as primarily an issue with contracts. I see it as an issue with welfarism and the secular surrogacy of the state.

    1. You’re right – it is a problem with the welfare state, but it’s not going away until it absolutely collapses. But that is years away (I think). What’s the solution?
      Also was thinking… what if the same backstory happened but instead the guy decided he liked the kid and wanted to get custody? I’m almost certain he’d not stand a chance in any state, and that would be based solely on the contract he signed.

      1. This too.

        Any chance you’re a fellow Albuquerquian, Kel?

        1. Haha, you got me.

    2. Let’s say instead that the parents did draw up a contract, but the state has no way to verify whether the father was a donor or an actual part of the family who is now, with the mother’s acquiescence, attempting to duck financial responsibility.

      I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that the number of women who would help their ex commit fraud to be pretty negligible.

      Then again, I’d also consider the number of guys getting ordered to pay child support to lesbians he met on Craigslist to be pretty negligible.

      1. I’d agree, but I’m thinking of the precedent set by a wilfully negligent welfare office. Admittedly not a realistic scenario, but I’m trying to illustrate the range of possible outcomes, not the likelihood of any particular outcome. Besides, imagine getting a monthly stipend from the welfare office vs. hoping your ex doesn’t welch on this month’s payment, and the hassle of having to take him back to court if he does.

  26. Those kangaroo courts really crack me up man. Wow.

    http://www.AnonWork.tk

  27. A free and open exchange. . . Not so much. Just another Reason some of us hate lawyers.

  28. 250 posts, 3/4 of which are Bo whinging about other people having different biases than he has (STOP NOT LIKING DIFFERENT THINGS THAN I DON’T LIKE!) and John playing reductio ad respect muh authoritah.

  29. Yes, because the imaginary social contract overrules actual real life contracts..

  30. It is common for conservatives to ‘hang out’ at libertarian discussion groups, especially, during Democrat administrations.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.