Hive opinion on a paternity/child support case?

[vaskidmark]

Kansas comes after sperm donor for child support after lesbian couple decide they can no longer support the child they went and got made by artificial insemination.

http://tinyurl.com/lknbrjj

“In this case, quite simply, the parties failed to perform to statutory requirement 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 right and responsibilities to the child,” Mattivi wrote.

The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in order to hold him responsible for $6,000 in public assistance the state had already provided, as well as future child support. Marotta opposed the court, saying that he had contacted Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauer in response to an ad they placed looking for a sperm donor. He then signed a contract with the two women to waive his parental rights and responsibilities. The Kansas DCF doesn’t care however. They argued that it is a ”well-established law in this state that a person cannot contract away his or her obligations to support their child.”

Marotta’s attorney Benoit Swinnen argued that the statute Kansas cited does not specifically require the insemination to be carried out by a physician. ”We stand by that contract,

Reading the Kansas Parentage Act http://www.kansasjudicialcouncil.org/Documents/Legislation/2010%20Legislation/Domestic%20Code_Final_.pdf it seems that artificial insemination is discussed only in Article 3, Section 23-301 (page 17 of the PDF) and in that it discusses the matter between "husband and wife" and only discusses "heterologous artificial insemination".  That means insemination by means other than intercourse.  Other sections of the Act discuss ways in which parentage can be established, including only a 97% "certainty" that the DNA matches that of the putative father.  The only way I can see for a sperm donor to avoid that trap is to refuse to provide identification when donating, which iirc is not generally allowed by the rules of sperm banks.

I don't see any requirement in the Act itself that the procedure can only be performed by a licensed physician.  However, I'm betting there are some other laws that say only licensed physicians can perform medical procedures of that nature.

It seems to me that State of Kansas may be facing an insurmountable problem - to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these folks did not use a turkey baster but instead did it the old-fashioned way.  It all depends on what the three parties have already testified to regarding the way in which the sperm was inseminated.  Would a lesbian desperate to have a child willing make the beast with two backs?

stay safe.

[geronimotwo]

Would a lesbian desperate to have a child willing make the beast with two backs?

stay safe.

i'm betting she would and he did.  to me, that doesn't make the "father" any more liable for child support.  the cards were all on the table and the ladies wanted the child, why should he be brought back into the equation under any circumstances?

[Firethorn]

I was just reading about this one!  BTW, tinyurl blocked at work.

Some notes from other forums:
1.  Need to emphasise that it's the state suing, not the lesbian couple.
2.  They found him via a craigslist add, he provided 3 'cups' for free, they were willing to pay $50
3.  No medical professional 'assisted', though he's saying he thought they would use one.
4.  After the birth the couple ended up seperating, then one became ill and lost her job, forcing the application for benefits, which got the state involved.
5.  They kept 'some' contact afterwards, along the order of a couple e-mails a year.

[AZRedhawk44]

I'm appalled.  Appalled, I say!

People having children outside of wedlock, heck even outside of heterosexual lust!  Contracting with each other in means outside those prescribed by the State!

This peaceful interaction between people, in a way that The Law had not yet foreseen and prepared itself for, must be controlled (and maybe taxed as well... Artificial Insemination procedures must involve at least two dozen billable CPT4 codes that would result in payable dividends to the State by means of payroll taxes to the doctor, his billing staff, and the insurance processing staff!  The State can't have people getting pregnant without paying the vig!).  Lesbians are dangerous and duplicitous creatures.  Men should not be around them or involved with them unless under tight supervision of police officers or medical professionals.

 

[geronimotwo]

I'm appalled.  Appalled, I say!

Lesbians women are dangerous and duplicitous creatures.  Men should not be around them or involved with them unless under tight supervision of police officers or medical professionals.

fify

[AJ Dual]

Trying to find a libertarian angle to this in terms of economic support and liability, while not going for the easy cop-out that under Libertarians "there'd be no welfare etc. so.."

I need more coffee. Too early in the AM yet. 

Gut level pragmatically speaking, not going through a clinic etc. with it's anomonimity etc. "Play stupid games..." comes to mind.

[bedlamite]

"Play stupid games..." comes to mind.

This.

If there's a legal requirement to go through a doc, and you don't bother, I won't have much sympathy.

[MechAg94]

So why is this different from a guy having a one night stand with a girl and then getting tagged with support a year or two later?  

That actually happened to a distant relative of mine.  2 or 3 years after the deed, the cops showed up at his job and hauled him in.  I don't think he even remembered who the girl was.  His mistake, sure.  

[AZRedhawk44]

If there's a legal requirement to go through a doc perform zoroastrian chants and ritualistically shave your testicles, and you don't bother, I won't have much sympathy.

How is this any different?

What makes this voluntary contractual situation different than any other peaceful voluntary contractual situation where the State is not needed?

[bedlamite]

How is this any different?

What makes this voluntary contractual situation different than any other peaceful voluntary contractual situation where the State is not needed?

How you'd like the rules to work isn't how they usually do.

[AZRedhawk44]

So why is this different from a guy having a one night stand with a girl and then getting tagged with support a year or two later?  

1. Because sperm banks already exist to recuse donors from parental responsibility.
2. If parental responsibility can be recused by means of contract, why should any particular organization hold monopoly over the execution of that contract?
3. If the mother / raising couple enter into that contract voluntarily, and the donor father enters into that contract voluntarily, how is the State justified in nullifying that contract and protecting the monopoly of the sperm bank and medical industry?  Seems to be a violation of anti-trust, to me.

[drewtam]

I'm against child support in general. [Except in the rare occasion of at-fault divorce / marriage abandonment.]

From a libertarian perspective... my argument is that Child Support is the enforcement of an arbitrary monetary contract that was never agreed by both parties. Rather a third party, the state, decided on its own whim must be enforced.

From a conservative perspective... my argument is that it encourages that which we don't want.

From a Christian perspective... I usually tread more lightly here, due to lack of precedent. I hate to be the one that adds things that aren't there. So I'll say this, God teaches man/woman family in the NT. Not much is said about children pre-marriage (obviously sex outside marriage is clearly sinful). The only exception for divorce is adultery & fornication in the NT. And there is an example in the OT of Israelite men divorcing from families they created but had no right to in the first place (which I think says something about unscriptural divorce and remarriage).

[roo_ster]

So...does Kansas require that folks/farms that sell bull semen are now responsible for the calf if the bull semen purchaser abandons the calf?  Or that purebred colts physically inseminated by studs are the responsibility of the stud's owner if the mare's owner abandons mare or colt?

[Ned Hamford]

The real fun part is how much the state will pay in court and associated expenses to make sure someone on the brink of poverty, or already poverty stricken, is holding the bag; even tho if they predictably drop it the state picks up the expenses again. 

As a matter of practicality I am all for government cheese; because at least then there is cheese. 

Outside of theft of semen, for which the gov has ruled a 'father' still responsible, I like the bright line rule.  Every sperm is sacred, play stupid games; get stupid prizes. ect ect

[RevDisk]

Outside of theft of semen, for which the gov has ruled a 'father' still responsible, I like the bright line rule.  Every sperm is sacred, play stupid games; get stupid prizes. ect ect

What legal situations do NOT hold the semen producer at fault? I'm not being sarcastic, but rather serious. Are sperm banks still legal safe harbors, or do/have they gone after donors as well?

[Hawkmoon]

So why is this different from a guy having a one night stand with a girl and then getting tagged with support a year or two later?  

How is this different? In a one-night stand, it generally isn't the intention of either participant to generate a pregnancy. In this case, there was a clear intent on the part of a lesbian couple to create a family. Irrespective of how the sperm were transmitted/implanted, the sperm donor's intention was only to be a sperm donor. The intention of the sperm recipient was specifically to become pregnant, and for the other lesbian partner to assume the familial role of "father."

This is one of those cases where I think one must look beyond the letter of the law and decide what the intent of the law is. I do not think that sperm donors should be open to future paternity claims. If that's allowed to stand, then men everywhere should simply refuse to be donors. Period.

[brimic]

If that's allowed to stand, then men everywhere should simply refuse to be donors. Period.

What legal situations do NOT hold the semen producer at fault? I'm not being sarcastic, but rather serious.

Those two statements go hand in hand.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Two thoughts.

This case: Dude was not involved with the child. Was not requested or required to be involved with the child. Did not want to be involved with the child. He produced some bodily fluid and gave it to some other people.
Law is abusing his right to dispose of his bodily fluid in whatever fasion he wants.

Now, if the beast with two backs was made outside the pre arranged conditions and inadvertenly resulted with a child, we can talk about paternal liability.

The thing about dude finding out he's owing for a one night stand he'd forgotten about:
This is such BS, it's not funny and a blantent abuse of child support laws. Being that his rights to his child were neglected, the mothers rights for assitance are pretty much non existant.
If the kid doesn't have an INFORMED father of record, that should be the end of it.
If a woman gets knocked up and fails to inform the sperm donor before the birth, and deal with the various issues at that time, then she can kiss goodbye to any child support that may have resulted. She wanted to do it on her own. Fine. She better suck it up and do it.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Deleted

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Deleted

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

[bedlamite]

Two thoughts.

This case: Dude was not involved with the child. Was not requested or required to be involved with the child. Did not want to be involved with the child. He produced some bodily fluid and gave it to some other people.
Law is abusing his right to dispose of his bodily fluid in whatever fasion he wants.

Now, if the beast with two backs was made outside the pre arranged conditions and inadvertenly resulted with a child, we can talk about paternal liability.

The thing about dude finding out he's owing for a one night stand he'd forgotten about:
This is such BS, it's not funny and a blantent abuse of child support laws. Being that his rights to his child were neglected, the mothers rights for assitance are pretty much non existant.
If the kid doesn't have an INFORMED father of record, that should be the end of it.
If a woman gets knocked up and fails to inform the sperm donor before the birth, and deal with the various issues at that time, then she can kiss goodbye to any child support that may have resulted. She wanted to do it on her own. Fine. She better suck it up and do it.

Again, that's the way it should work. That's not the way it does work. Right or wrong, there are laws and precedent in place, and ignoring this fact may require that you deal with consequences. Selling a cup of DNA on Craigslist is phenomenally bad idea under current laws.

[Strings]

Skip... that hasn't been decided yet

It's unclear in the statutes whether or not such a sperm donor is liable. That's for the courts to decide

[BlueStarLizzard]

Again, that's the way it should work. That's not the way it does work. Right or wrong, there are laws and precedent in place, and ignoring this fact may require that you deal with consequences. Selling a cup of DNA on Craigslist is phenomenally bad idea under current laws.

I know. I still think it's BS.

[Firethorn]

What legal situations do NOT hold the semen producer at fault? I'm not being sarcastic, but rather serious. Are sperm banks still legal safe harbors, or do/have they gone after donors as well?

It'd been attempted, unsuccessful so far.  Cases where the sperm donor knows the mother in question are much more of a grey area.  There have been a number of cases where the 'donor' is fairly involved - the occasional gift, visitation, etc, such that the court has said they're the father and responsible.

Anonymous donation where the donor doesn't know who, how many, if any about any potential mothers/children are still 'safe'.