goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: renocat on June 28, 2015, 08:17:05 PM
-
A Topeka man is being sued by the state of Kansas for back child support. His crime donating wonder juices to a lesbian couple. Why should he be forced to pay. The couple should work out child support, and leave this guy out. He ain't dad or mom. This wrong on so many levels.
-
Interesting
-
Knowing nothing about this, I agree 100 percent with renocat
-
Link?
-
If this is the same story as last yr, the state is going after him because the moms split and the one with custody is on govt assistance. The state is going after the donor to regain their assistance money, or something to that effect.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
-
If this is the same story as last yr, the state is going after him because the moms split and the one with custody is on govt assistance. The state is going after the donor to regain their assistance money, or something to that effect.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Still dumb
-
Yeah
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
-
Poor guy. Hopefully he doesn't get screwed over by the court.
-
was he a test tube donor or a volunteer impregnator? does it matter to the law?
-
I'd imagine Kansas is probably only pursuing this to scare other people away from letting lesbians have babies.
-
was he a test tube donor or a volunteer impregnator? does it matter to the law?
No doctor involved. Apparently, in the eyes of the law that's the difference.
-
That was the case in 2009, when William Marotta answered an online ad for a sperm donation for Angela Bauer and her then-partner, Jennifer Schreiner. The three signed an agreement they believed severed Marotta's parental rights, and Schreiner became pregnant.
But because they didn't go through a doctor, the state argues, Marotta is the legal father and should be responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance Schreiner received to help care for the child. The state also wants him to pay child support, though neither woman is asking for money.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/sperm-donor_n_2408580.html
-
Kansas law states that a sperm donor is not the father of a child if a doctor handles the artificial insemination. But the law does not specifically address the donor's rights and obligations when no doctor was involved.
That was the case in 2009, when William Marotta answered an online ad for a sperm donation for Angela Bauer and her then-partner, Jennifer Schreiner. The three signed an agreement they believed severed Marotta's parental rights, and Schreiner became pregnant.
i hope it was a craigslist ad and that the ad appears in court
-
I think they all drew up their own legal documents and that wasn't the best method. Still a stupid lawsuit but I don't know if it is any stupider than dropping off a cup of your sperm to some strangers.
-
I'm sure that if the couple were heterosexual, Kansas would be seeking money from the adoptive father.
-
Its another example of a super con' govt being hypocritical. This seems like a pretty fantastic example of basic rights that the idea of being conservative should keep you wanting to govern.
-
Who are the parent(s) listed on the birth certificate?
-
In Texas, because I wasn't married when my daughter was born, I had to sign a document saying that I was accepting financial responsibility for the child even if at a later time it was determined she wasn't my biological child. Also, another friend of mine was separated from his wife and she got pregnant. He did not file for divorce prior to the birth of the baby and he found himself paying child support on a child that was quite obviously not his.
-
In Texas, because I wasn't married when my daughter was born, I had to sign a document saying that I was accepting financial responsibility for the child even if at a later time it was determined she wasn't my biological child. Also, another friend of mine was separated from his wife and she got pregnant. He did not file for divorce prior to the birth of the baby and he found himself paying child support on a child that was quite obviously not his.
I have a friend here in KS who got pregnant, then divorced, then had the baby (in that order)...but the ex-husband is not the father. On the birth certificate she only had the option to list no father or the ex-husband as the father because they determined that the conception date was when she was still married.
I think there is a pending court case that the ex-husband and father of the baby had to go to and they were all supposed to give DNA samples...but I don't know if it has been resolved yet.
-
SPERMIES WIN!!!&
https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/sperm-donor-is-not-responsible-for-child-support-kansas-judge-says/?client=ms-android-verizon
-
That's good
-
Way to go Spermies!
-
In Texas, because I wasn't married when my daughter was born, I had to sign a document saying that I was accepting financial responsibility for the child even if at a later time it was determined she wasn't my biological child. Also, another friend of mine was separated from his wife and she got pregnant. He did not file for divorce prior to the birth of the baby and he found himself paying child support on a child that was quite obviously not his.
How exactly did that work?
-
In Texas, because I wasn't married when my daughter was born, I had to sign a document saying that I was accepting financial responsibility for the child even if at a later time it was determined she wasn't my biological child. Also, another friend of mine was separated from his wife and she got pregnant. He did not file for divorce prior to the birth of the baby and he found himself paying child support on a child that was quite obviously not his.
How exactly did that work?
Probably "had to" sign in order to get his name on the birth certificate.
-
not a lawyer, but i hear things on radios and see things on the internet - i doubt if he had to sign anything. my understanding is that in many states, the child of a married couple is legally assumed to be the child of married male. the principle is of the law is set up for the benefit of the child - to assure that it is provided for, not to assure that adult males don't have to pay for children they didn't father.
-
not a lawyer, but i hear things on radios and see things on the internet - i doubt if he had to sign anything. my understanding is that in many states, the child of a married couple is legally assumed to be the child of married male. the principle is of the law is set up for the benefit of the child - to assure that it is provided for, not to assure that adult males don't have to pay for children they didn't father.
In KS if you are married (or were married at time of conception) you have the option of putting the husband or no one as the father. (Although they will later try to collect from the husband if the mother uses public assistance.)
-
Gonna be a great time for the kid in a few years when he/she learns to Google Mom's name.
-
not a lawyer, but i hear things on radios and see things on the internet - i doubt if he had to sign anything. my understanding is that in many states, the child of a married couple is legally assumed to be the child of married male. the principle is of the law is set up for the benefit of the child - to assure that it is provided for, not to assure that adult males don't have to pay for children they didn't father.
To my knowledge he didn't sign anything.
I believe the principal of the law is less about benefiting the child and more about the state having someone to seek reimburse from if ever that child receives public assistance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk