A Kansas man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple is being sued by the state for child support, after the couple separated and the mother sought public assistance for her and her child. Pick a side.
If you mean the ex partner, HPNerd, I'd agree. I haven't seen anything specifying why she hasn't offered ON HER OWN to be responsible. But I do understand why the state isn't suing her.
Shame on the other woman more like. She accepted the responsibility, she shouldn't bail just because she legally can! Uphold your commitments, lady!
The state requires a doctor to be involved in the procedure for the biological father to be free of financial responsibility.
He's not anonymous but his name was not on the birth certificate (both women's names were). The state is not suing the partner because they don't acknowledge her as a legal parent. They're suing the man because the document the 3 people signed doesn't meet the requirements of the state...
Sounds like he was a friend and maybe his name is on the birth certificate. Does not sound like an anonymous donor.
They can't, because of their own laws.
The state should have sued the other woman, duh!
This may be the worst thing I've ever heard. As if I didn't trust the government to do the right thing enough already! Now I've heard em all...
Cowboy is right. And cornbread is a hippy. Coexist?
I'm hoping this will wake them up about their laws, mama. I think they have a constitutional statement against marriage equality, so that part will be tough. And there's some validity to not accepting private agreements that are at opposition with state laws, so may be rough going there too.
You are correct Susan- so shame on the state.
A contract drawn up by an attorney wouldn't have fulfilled the requirement for the state of Kansas, but I'll bet the lawyer would have known or found out the acceptable procedure, which is to have worked with a physician.
It's different in that Kansas doesn't deal with it too well. They don't view the ex partner as a legal parent. (If they viewed same-sex relationships differently, this wouldn't be an issue.) all 3 adults signed an agreement to absolve him of financial responsibility but the state doesn't accept it.
It's the state of Kansas suing the man. Their only currently legal option is to pay the support themselves, which is to say the taxpayers would pay it.
Shame on her for what, exactly? She's not suing the man. The state of Kansas is, and she tried to prevent that.
Oh for crying out loud. Shame on her. Totally NOT his responsibility.
What specifically do you think happens at these parades?
And letting you near children is exposing them to mentally disturbed.
I look like a lunatic? I'm not the one exposing children to the mentally disturbed. Protecting children from perverts should be our number one goal. You wanna be gay, go be gay. Just leave the kids alone.
Been to? None. I'm not a pervert. But I've seen pictures and heard about it. Its disgusting. I bet you know what goes on there and enjoy it. Anyone that lets a child see it should be charge with child abuse.
This is kind of like that time a chick tried to make her male baby sitter pay child support for "taking on a fatherly role". Real cute, now go find some other way to leech money.
If he entered into the agreement without consenting to care for the child, he should not be held to that. This normally wouldn't apply (in the case of negligent fathers), but this deal had two biological contributors and two parents. It's different.
1. He should have thought about the possibility of this happening before he donated and he should have weighed the consequences.
2. He should have hired an attorney to draw up a legally binding contract between all parties before entering into an agreement.
It is neither sympathy nor special privileges. It is equality and respect.
That's not right. He did a good deed. What a shame.
How many of those parades have you actually been to? Heard about? Read about? Seen pictures? I'm guessing slim to none. So shove your opinion until you get some facts. And stop crying that people need to protect kids from reality, you look like a lunatic.
Think, I agree with you completely (except for the rather bizarre personal comment, and the quality bizarre comment about loopholes). I think it would be GREAT if the court went by INTENT in this case. I don't know if they have that much leeway, but maybe this case will set a precedent.
Absolutely, Think. I wonder if the state of Kansas will do some modification of their laws so that this doesn't happen again.
And yes, the man is a victim - of the state's laws.
I don't think she should go to jail (who would that help? and would a heterosexual ex partner be jailed; I'd assume they'd be required to provide support first; jailed if they failed) but I believe she should be the responsible person the state should be pursuing for support.
Well the idea is equality under the law, and being gay is not a choice. Get your facts together.
he simply did the lesbian couple a favor. they used a home kit so not to waste money on a doctor. stupid law and should be changed. should not charge him for ignorance of bad law.
... in this case, lets hope that the court will see the intent of the contract, and honor the wishes of the lesbians.
Then lets hope that the courts hold the lesbian parents both accountable for the child they wanted, and not the state, and not the donor.
Susan ... I'm sure you marvel at the intellect of your comments, but the question for the court is ... What was the intent of the adults in this contract. The lesbian parents intended for this man to have no part in raising the child. Democrats and professional victims love loop holes, but ...
This is a case that is not about the virtue or disgust associated with homosexuality. This is about a parent -- in this case a lesbian parent -- who is abandoning the needs of her child. She -- not the state nor the sperm donor -- should be held accountable.
And why is the state of Kansas involved? Because the lesbian partner is now abandoning her responsibility to pay for the welfare of the child. Irresponsible parents come in all shapes and deviations. The man is a victim in this case. The lesbian partner should go to jail.
And anyone who thinks that because you chose to act in a deviant way means that you deserve sympathy or special privileges is a bigot.
Anyone who thinks that being gay means you are mental is a bigot, and has no credibility.
The guy was beyond dumb because they didn't use a doctor or have a official contract. They made up a contract and he signed it without learning the laws.
IF ONLY it were a matter if equal rights! Kansas doesn't recognize the ex-partner as a legal parent, so they'll go after the man as the biological father. If the 3 adults had worked with a doctor on the sperm donation, they wouldn't, but the state doesn't recognize the doc they signed as legal.
Not in the eyes of Kansas law, he didn't. Scroll down a few comments & look for my replies that explain.
HE GAVE AWAY ANY AND ALL HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS. WHICH MEANS HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SQUAT!
By the way, we used donor sperm- and never need or want to meet him, except to say thank you.
So if the government wants to go after the sperm DONOR for child support, does that mean that if said DONOR found out the mothers were really bad parents he could step in and take the child-a child that doesn't know who he is? The state would probally not give him the child. IT WAS A DONATION.
He did something in good faith to help someone else the the lesbian couple separated they should go after the second mom not the guy who donated the sperm... Hey equal rights right?
They (all 3 adults) signed a document to remove financial responsibility (and parental rights) from the man. The state of Kansas doesn't accept that document; they require sperm donation to involve a doctor in order to remove financial responsibility from the man.
No, only those that aren't done in compliance with the laws of the state. In KS, they require a doctor to be involved in order to protect the man from financial responsibility. These 3 people signed an agreement to protect the man, but no doctor was involved. The state won't accept their document.
I agree with you that the concept that homosexuals are "mentally disturbed" is outdated, wrongheaded, and cruel. But I don't agree that they "have a different way of thinking." In my experience, the sole inherent difference is that they are sexually attracted to the same sex, not opposite.
The problem is with the laws of the state of Kansas; you can't just say arbitrarily that the man is free of responsibility because he didn't insert the semen. The state requires a doctor to be involved with sperm donation, and they didn't do that.
@cowboy: There are lots of crappy parents who end up raising children, gay or straight. And by the way, having an opinion that doesn't agree with yours isn't a mental disorder. Its just life, so get over it. I'm actually pretty on conservative too, just in case you claimed i was crazy.
..working with a doctor for sperm donation, for the donor to be free of financial responsibility. The state of Kansas does not acknowledge the same-sex ex-partner as a legal parent, therefore they're going after the biological father.
The parents are NOT suing; it's the state of Kansas that is suing. (That much info is in the question itself.) the parents tried to prevent the man from being involved. All 3 signed a document removing the man from financial responsibility; the state does not view it as legal; they require...