Can Kansas make a sperm donor cough up child support?
posted at 9:31 am on January 6, 2013 by Jazz Shaw
There’s a rather strange case brewing out in Kansas right now involving a man being sued by the state for child support. That, in and of itself, is sadly not all that unusual in modern society, but this one has a twist. The guy was a sperm donor. But that’s not the only twist in an increasingly complicated tale.
If you’re planning to donate sperm in Kansas, you may want to do it through a doctor.
That’s one message from the case of William Marotta of Topeka. In 2009, he noticed a Craig’s List advertisement from a lesbian couple, also in Topeka, seeking donated sperm.
“Intrigued” by the ad, he agreed to donate and says he delivered three cupfuls of his sperm — gratis — to the women, one of whom gave birth to a daughter.
So first… ewww. Thanks, CNN, but that might fall into the “Too Much Information” category. But getting beyond that, the tale goes somewhat off the rails. As part of the, er… arrangement… Mr. Marotta and both of the lesbian parents sign an agreement where he gives up any custodial rights to the future child and is absolved of responsibility. He departs the scene and the couple proceed to conceive.
The lesbian couple breaks up after having the baby and the mother finds herself in dire financial straights. She applies for public assistance and receives payments. Then, as part of the state’s usual routine, they attempt to track down the father – not the mother’s “ex” because gay marriage is constitutionally banned in Kansas – and nail him for $6,000 to cover the assistance she received and demands he start making child support payments.
My first reaction here was that the guy was totally being screwed over by the system. Editorials were posted saying that the laws in Kansas were out of date and needed to be changed. But the longer I thought about it and considered the side of the story being put forward by the state, the less sure I became of my initial reaction.
First, both the lesbian couple and Mr. Marotta messed up quite a bit from a legal perspective. The agreement they signed was totally private and never involved a court or a lawyer. The artificial insemination was done at home with no doctor ever being involved. Yes, I understand that the process is extremely expensive in a doctor’s office and lawyers aren’t cheap, but there was no paper trail to document their agreement. Under Kansas law, if the women had used a doctor who noted that it was a donor situation, Marotta would have been off the hook. And it seems to me – as a layman – that if they had at least gone to court to get some sort of formal donor agreement documented before the fact, he would stand a better chance in court today. As things stand, it looks as if he will lose.
But even more to the point, perhaps the current state of the law serves as a barrier against abuse. If this type of arrangement was allowed to stand, could any guy who got a woman pregnant later show up claiming to be a “donor” in a he said, she said situation? Or what if Marotta was the father, but had threatened the mother with harm if she contradicted his story to the police? (Mind you, I’m not saying that’s the case here at all, but in some other set of circumstances, you could see some real jerk doing that.) It just seems to open the door to all manner of abuse.
In the end, this is a very sad situation for Mr. Marotta, but if he and the lesbian couple had done the proper leg work to check into the applicable laws and get everything documented properly, he wouldn’t have this problem. I’m no longer sure that all of the outrage over this story is justified.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
Menendez – Looks like we don’t have the votes for that immigration bill after all
America in decline – Bars selling rubbing alcohol as “scotch”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
Having established a contract with the mother should have been enough to convince the government that he deserves to be let out.
What other argument do you have?
blink on January 7, 2013 at 3:29 PM
This story is a great example of something a lawyer once told me:
“It’s the simple agreements that cause trouble. Everything is NOT spelled out.”
Owen Glendower on January 7, 2013 at 3:55 PM
Because he signed a private contract absolving him from reimbursing the mother not the state. If he did not want to be held responsible by the state then he should have made sure that his contract passed state muster or that is contract remained private i.e., the person he gave his sperm to did not ask for government bennies. BTW, child support does is not the right of the mother; it is the right of the child- hence why it is the state that needs to absolve parental obligations and rights.
melle1228 on January 7, 2013 at 4:09 PM
From what I could find out- voluntary reliquishment of rights in Kansas must be in front of judge or licensed officer therefore it could not be done by a private contract. I am sure that sperm banks and fertility doctors have licensed officers on hand to help with these types of contracts. These two obviously did not follow Kansas law which would not have been an issue at all had they kept their crap private, but when they involved the state by asking for money then guess what– you have to follow state rules.
melle1228 on January 7, 2013 at 4:16 PM
melle1228, according to your framework, the state would have the right to go after a father that did not consent to the use of his sperm – which doesn’t make any sense.
Can you resolve that problem?
blink on January 7, 2013 at 6:23 PM
Umm be careful where you “put” your sperm as it can literally make you pay.
melle1228 on January 7, 2013 at 6:46 PM
Oh and btw blink it isn’t my framework. In the state of Kansas in order for a bio parent to terminate parental rights and responsibilities they must go before a judge or an officer. If this man did not protect his behind by doing either of these things; then he is an idiot who is now being literally $crewed by the lesbian who wants her state bennies. He should take it up with her.
melle1228 on January 7, 2013 at 6:49 PM
blink on January 7, 2013 at 6:23 PM
I’ll shoot back at you-no pun intended. What if they side with this father who did in fact give his permission to use his sperm. Does that mean that every guy who says that he was “donating” sperm to get out of paying for a child now gets out of paying for a child? That is what this kind of precedent would set up.
There is a compelling reason why termination of parental rights happens in a public capacity.
melle1228 on January 7, 2013 at 7:06 PM
A child born outside the confines of matrimony has NO moral right (and ought not have the legal right) to be raised by both parents, physically or financially. Only a child born within the confines of lawful matrimony has the moral right to be raised by both parents.
To believe otherwise is to support the ranks of Leftists that are hellbent on destroying the family by disparaging matrimony by granting the rights of married persons to unmarried persons.
This is not the same as saying that a bastard child ought not be loved or cared for. All children are gifts from God, which is why men and women ought to make themselves fit for blessings.
TXJenny on January 7, 2013 at 7:51 PM
Really?
A child, any child, is innocent of the circumstances of its birth. Might one rather expect that such a child, a gift from G-d as you say, ought to have some claim for support against a mature adult male who willfully and irresponsibility “made a baby” in such a precarious illicit situation without making due and competent provision for the up bring and support of that child? His child mind you. What sort of mature due diligence did this Marotta fellow do before he engaged in such a reckless act? … a willful act bring a child into the world and willfully denying that child a father by design? Upon whom did this Marotta fellow expect the burden for raising his child would fall in such a precarious illicit situation? Upon a single mom? Or upon the taxpayer? Taxpayers more often than not are responsible parents struggling to provide for their own children.
We all would be well served if the adult men are expected to act like responsible adult men. And making a public policy example out of William Marotta would seem to a just and reasonable step towards doing so.
Mike OMalley on January 7, 2013 at 10:15 PM
Well, if someone has no knowledge that their egg or sperm is being used to make a child then it’s difficult to go before a judge or officer.
But hey, maybe everyone in the state of Kansas should go before a judge or office and terminate parental rights for all children that might get created from the use of their sperm or eggs.
blink on January 7, 2013 at 10:23 PM
If the donation was contractually contingent upon the donation then it’s a very simple legal standard that can be used.
If someone gives me title to their car, and I accept such title, then I have assumed disposal costs of that car. Contracts such as the one described in this article should be respected.
Maybe there is, but you haven’t described it.
blink on January 7, 2013 at 10:26 PM
Would your comment be any different if gay marriage was legal in Kansas? Would you comment be any different if the donation was supplied to a heterosexual couple?
blink on January 7, 2013 at 10:28 PM
1. While it is true that the child is innocent, due to the circumstances of his conception and birth he is at an automatic disadvantage compared to legitimate children. This is not a punishment of the child, but rather the natural consequence of his parents’ choices. (You wouldn’t say that a child is punished because he is born to poor parents so much as he is at a natural disadvantage due to his parents’ misfortune.)
2. I do think Christian men ought to willingly claim and support any and all of their illegitimate children; however, like giving alms to the poor, it ought not be compelled upon him by the state. It for the support and protection of their children that women marry in the first place, and for the stability of society that the law compels men to fulfill their duty to their lawful spouse and children. To compel by law the same for spurious offspring trivializes marriage, which attitude causes greater harm to society than a man not claiming his bastard child.
3. The responsibility of raising the child in the story should not fall upon taxpayers; Socialism is theft and therefore wrong. But if the mother cannot and the man will not afford the child’s care, then the mother ought to approach kith, kin, community, and church, allowing them to exercise mercy and give alms for her child’s care. In this way, she would not feel entitled to charity, but would benefit spiritually from the fellowship she and her child would receive. The problem is that the state keeps butting in where it ought not because as always the state thinks it knows best; instead, we have unwed motherhood becoming commonplace and fatherless household becoming epidemic…and Socialism increases and religion decreases.
TXJenny on January 8, 2013 at 12:47 AM
Actually there is and I have described it several times. Support of a child is the child’s right not the parents and as such the parent cannot sign away that right without a compelling reason hence why the state gets involved. The state also gets involved because if a parent is abdicating their responsibility then the state has to pick up the tab.
Face it, this man did not sign a legal contract in Kansas which requires termination of parental rights to be in front of a judge. And furthermore, the irresponsible seeding of this irresponsible lesbian now means that taxpayers now are on the hook for this child. Why should we all be penalized? We spend entirely too much time wondering if we CAN DO something and not enough time thinking if we SHOULD do something.
melle1228 on January 8, 2013 at 8:10 AM
Actually it wouldn’t be different other than the fact that within a hetero marriage a child is ASSUMED the man’s. And the husband could fight support based on the fact that the child was not his and then the state would be forced to go after the bio dad.
If gay marriage was legal this would not be the case, as the state of Kansas would still be involved to terminate the donor’s rights. Anyway you look at it, homosexuals cannot produce children together and thus need a third party. Third party donors have rights and responsibilities that have to be absolved and in the state of Kansas this must be done by the judge.
You can argue all you want, but ultimately it was the responsibility of the parties to make sure that their private contract was legal and it wasn’t.
melle1228 on January 8, 2013 at 8:15 AM
Someone that doesn’t know that their sperm or egg is being used wouldn’t know that they need to have to go before a judge.
That’s why I asked if everyone in Kansas should go in front of a judge in order to preempt any use of their sperm or egg.
And does your “compelling reason” apply to someone that donates an egg to a heterosexual married couple? Should the state be able to force that woman to pay for a child simply because she didn’t ask a judge permission if she could donate an egg?
You have far too many holes in your legal argument. Don’t expect anyone to ask you to argue this in front of a higher court.
blink on January 8, 2013 at 9:25 AM
Because liberals want governments to provide far too much assistance to far too many people.
blink on January 8, 2013 at 9:28 AM
DNA test.
blink on January 8, 2013 at 9:28 AM
Btw, in case you didn’t understand this. I meant that the mother’s former husband could get a DNA test in order to prove that he’s not the father. He could then tell the story about the donation that occurred with a judging saying that it was ok.
blink on January 8, 2013 at 9:33 AM
Blink, arguing in front of SCOTUS would be easy. Kansas law states that termination of parental rights requires you go before an elected official or a judge. This contract did not satisfy that requirement. What part of that do you not understand? The “sperm” donor should have protected himself. The “mother” should be able to financial support the child- and BOTH parties should have made sure that that they had a legal contract. You can argue and argue, but they did not have a legal contract.
Sure he could and many do, but you don’t have a fundamentally understanding of the law. Legally children born in heterosexually marriage are assumed the husbands.
Including this lesbian mother. So guess what, this donor’s problem is with her..
melle1228 on January 8, 2013 at 10:11 AM
You’re so bad at this, I almost feel like stepping in to help you. Did you even read the scenario about Bill Gates’ housekeeper?
blink on January 8, 2013 at 10:16 AM
melle1228, again, we shouldn’t need to go to a judge to get permission to enter into an agreement with someone.
blink on January 8, 2013 at 10:18 AM
Blink wrote: “melle1228, again, we shouldn’t need to go to a judge to get permission to enter into an agreement with someone.”
And again, when that agreement attempts to limit or eliminate the rights of a 3rd party, (the child) then ABSOLUTELY we need to have a Judge or some other legal procedure that is followed before such an agreement can be legally valid.
If the agreement only affected them, then I would agree. But their agreement was to produce a new life, and both of them knew that was the purpose of their agreement at the time they made it. They can’t make an agreement between themselves to dump that new life on the rest of us with no repercussions to themselves.
and to TxJenny’s claim that illegitimate children should be dumped on the street with no support:
“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge. “Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman. “And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?” “They are.” “The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge. “Both very busy, sir.” “:Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.” “Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?” “Nothing!” Scrooge replied. “You wish to be anonymous?” “I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.” “Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.” “If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.” Seeing clearly that it would be useless to pursue their point, the gentlemen withdrew. Scrooge resumed his labours with an improved opinion of himself, and in a more facetious temper than was usual with him.
Tom Servo on January 8, 2013 at 11:08 AM
You introduce a non sequitur. Keep reaching for completely meaningless arguments. It ain’t helping you prove yer point, dude.
My argument is based upon the logic that is found in St. Thomas’ Summa concerning illegitimacy. The Christian ought to claim and care for his spurious offspring, but human law ought not compel him to do so…just as we ought to aid the poor, but no human law ought compel us to do so…otherwise the state robs us of an opportunity to exercise charity; thus, the state harms society via encouraging the propagation of vice and discouraging religion.
Your position is that of every softhearted Leftist: good intention is not enough (just see how Socialist welfare programs have served to further harm the poor as opposed to alleviate their suffering).
TXJenny on January 8, 2013 at 11:32 AM
So, what’s the moral here?
“Never stick your dick in a lesbian in Kansas”?
mojo on January 8, 2013 at 12:17 PM
TxJenny – You could have saved a lot of effort just by typing “BAH! HUMBUG!!!” and left it at that.
Tom Servo on January 8, 2013 at 12:43 PM
That should read:
“Never allow a lesbian to stick
your dicka turkey baster filled with your semen into another lesbian in Kansas”Pork-Chop on January 8, 2013 at 12:49 PM
It’s not worth discussing this with you if you’re going to be so willfully ignorant of what is being stated.
blink on January 8, 2013 at 1:07 PM
You think there aren’t already laws about this on the books? The only thing different about this case is the ZOMG LESBINS! portion of it.
What is “both ways” about it? There are laws about legal sperm donation/implantation(? correct word?) and then there are other cases. This is another case not covered by the legal donations.
In this case, if the LESBINS were still together and the mother went after the father, she would probably win.
Only after the mother went to the state to ask for welfare did they stick their noses in. The lesbins being a couple had nothing to do with it.
btw, bad spelling intentional so we can have a discussion and not get filtered.
cptacek on January 8, 2013 at 1:09 PM
So you’re saying that the government should have seized more of Scrooge’s assets?
blink on January 8, 2013 at 1:11 PM
In Michigan, one can lose one’s parental rights and still have to pay support. The right to support is the child’s right and cannot be given away. Even if he voluntarily relinquished his rights under Kansas law, if they are anything like Michigan, he’d still have to pay support. I see no option but that he go to trial on this issue and elicit testimony confirming his status as a mere donor and then hope that he can be absolved from responsibility at that point.
If nothing else, this should teach would-be donors to stay away from Craig’s List.
totherightofthem on January 8, 2013 at 1:47 PM
Bl.JPII sure knew what he was talking about, eh?
cptacek on January 8, 2013 at 1:48 PM
Irrelevant to this case. This man gave his permission to create a child. This man needed to terminate his rights and responsibilities legally which he didn’t. You are bad at this.
Yes, there are some contracts that require the state i.e., divorce. BTW, this contract would NEVER have required state intervention had one of the parties NOT ASKED FOR STATE INTERVENTION. You can’t ask and expect privacy when you invite the state into your business. Again, the sperm donor only has himself (for not protecting himself) and the lesbian(for inviting the state) to blame..
melle1228 on January 8, 2013 at 2:27 PM
So, are you claiming that permission should be a necessary element (because this is the first time you are mentioning this)?
Divorce only requires that the state undo something that the state was already asked to do. Divorce doesn’t require a judge’s permission if the state was never included in the marriage. And people only ask the state permission to marry so that the state will give them marriage benefits.
blink on January 8, 2013 at 2:43 PM
melle1228, you probably support the state going after an ex-husband that isn’t the father of a child that his ex-wife had while he was married to her – simply because of how the law currently treats such cases.
blink on January 8, 2013 at 2:46 PM
Actually no that is not all divorce is. Divorce is also the divying up of private property, child support and child custody agreement all relevant entities to the discussion we are having.And also, couples can seperate WITHOUT the state’s help, but once they ask the state to intervene then the state becomes involved much the way of this case. The state would not even be aware of this situation if the mother did not ask the state to get involved.
No, but that is not the case here. This child is his biological child. Again when you enter into these arrangements people need to be smart. It is a complicated legal matter. And furthermore, ex-husbands have recourses when it comes to not paying for children that are not their bio children. That being said there have been many husbands who have lost contact with children they have raised in a defunct marriage because they were not their bio children and they had no rights to those children once the marriage ended.
BTW, you seem to think that my opinion is a personal opinion. That is not the case. I think this man is getting a raw deal, but I also think that he is partially at fault for not protecting himself.
melle1228 on January 8, 2013 at 3:42 PM
If there is no state marriage, then there is no divorce.
I never said that it was. You seem slow to grasp simple concepts.
My claim is germane. You probably support the state taking the actions that I described simply because of legal precedent.
You probably would have supported decisions in-line with Dred Scott for years after that decision, too.
blink on January 8, 2013 at 7:42 PM
A woman that gets raped should have done more to protect herself, too. The laws and precedents are wrong about this.
blink on January 8, 2013 at 7:44 PM
You are being absolutely ridiculous and not even worth arguing anymore. One is a clear victim(rape); the other is ignorant and naive(not looking out for oneself legally).
And if this woman didn’t ask for state bennies then they wouldn’t be going after this man. See how that works.
I never said that it was. You seem slow to grasp simple concepts.
Drama meet queen..
melle1228 on January 8, 2013 at 8:28 PM
Would my comment be any different if gay marriage was legal in Kansas? No, but it seems my comment would then need to be expanded to clarify that it is no less wrong to willfully denying that child a mother by design.
.
Would my comment be any different if the donation was supplied to a heterosexual couple? No, if somehow such an arrangement would deny a child either a father and/or a mother by design.
Mike OMalley on January 8, 2013 at 8:33 PM
They BOTH could have done more to protect themselves from the situation they are in. One could claim that the raped woman wasn’t looking out for herself, too.
Just because difference exist between the two, doesn’t mean that they don’t have this in common.
This agreement came before the woman asked for taxpayers to give her money. I should be allowed to give something to someone contingent upon them being responsible for the use of such item.
I can give someone a bag of cement, and they could use that cement to make an obstruction in a public street. I shouldn’t be required to pay to have the obstruction removed just because I didn’t have a judge bless the agreement I had about the cement.
On the contrary. You’re stuck believing that the current laws are right – just like someone that believed that slavery shouldn’t be prohibited after Dred Scott. That’s not a dramatic statement. It accurately describes people who view right-and-wrong in terms of case precedent the same way you do.
blink on January 8, 2013 at 8:38 PM
This doesn’t make any sense. The child would have had two mothers legally wedded to each other until they weren’t.
This doesn’t make much sense, either, but it reveals that you believe that nobody should ever donate sperm to anyone without a judge saying that it’s ok. You seem to favor government regulation as much as our resident liberals.
blink on January 8, 2013 at 8:42 PM
Way too much time wasted on a guy who spent no time at all thinking about what he was doing. He produced a child and doesn’t seem to have ever considered that he might bear some responsibility for that child.
You have to wonder why someone would be so thoughtless about the responsibility of bringing a child into the world. Was he just trying to make a quick buck? Or did he do this just because the women were lesbians, and he wanted to give a finger to Kansas because they didn’t offer same-sex marriage? Either way, he doesn’t seem to have acted with any concern for a child he brought into the world, and without even a thought whether the child being raised without a mother and father was even healthy.
I’ve known a lot of men that lived only for themselves and avoided all commitment, but almost all of them would still have hesitated to produce a child and then abandon all responsibility for him. I’ve even heard as much from some of them when they’d been drinking: “At least I never hurt anyone or abandoned a child.”
No, this man is paying the price for his own stupidity, irresponsibility, and immorality. I want to sympathize because none of us are everything we should be, but he should at least take responsibility for himself and not play the victim.
tom on January 8, 2013 at 8:52 PM
BTW, Jazz Shaw:
Seriously, they only searched for the father “because gay marriage is constitutionally banned in Kansas?” How about they searched for the father because they already had the mother, and because the “ex” was basically nothing more than the mother’s previous girlfriend.
It always amazes me to watch the contortions people go through to try to make homosexual relations exactly equal to normal family relations. Even if a government foolishly redefines marriage to include same-sex couples, children are still produced by a mother and a father. It does no good to ask, “What if they were a heterosexual couple?” If they were a heterosexual couple, the situation would inherently be different. For one thing, the dispute would be over who was really the father, not whether a lesbian ex-lover is the same thing as a father.
tom on January 8, 2013 at 9:00 PM
If the responsibility of raising a child is not to fall upon the taxpayers it must then necessarily fallen those who are directly responsible for the circumstances of the child’s conception. If a man makes a baby he should be financially responsible for his baby as a matter of public policy. Charity has its place and so does priority of legitimate children. Nonetheless, we all would be well served if the adult men are expected to act like responsible adult men.
.
We have an epidemic of illegitimacy and children raised in maternal headed single parent households in no small part because adult men evade responsibility for the babies they make. In a mutually reciprocating way, welfare is both a cause and an effect of millions of men making babies they do not and will not support.
.
Tell me TXJenny, what is your denominational affiliation and what is that denomination’s teaching about the responsibility of parents of illegitimate children for those children?
Mike OMalley on January 8, 2013 at 9:00 PM
Why of course what I wrote on January 8, 2013 at 8:33 PM makes sense. And it makes good public policy sense. Each and every child has a moral right to have a father and a mother.
Yes the second part of what I wrote on January 8, 2013 at 8:33 PM also makes sense, if somehow such an arrangement were to leave a child fatherless and/or motherless by design. Granted, such an arrangement might be hard to imagine. But you posed the question, not I. And in a population of over three hundred million one expect that there are more that a few heterosexual knuckleheads who could somehow fumble their way into producing such unimaginable result.
Mike OMalley on January 8, 2013 at 9:27 PM
Isn’t that a Bobby Bare song?
rogerb on January 8, 2013 at 10:15 PM
Actually Blink YOUR position more resembles Dred Scott. You think that it is entirely okay to pass children around like property i.e., genetic material.
Children deserve support from those that create them. If the person that does creates them is abdicating that responsibilities they have a duty to make sure that who they are abdicating it do can fulfill that duty called due diligence. The state has a vested interest in the termination and the absolution of parental rights because if someone isn’t held responsible for the child; the state automatically becomes responsible.
Your position is untenable because you are sticking up for the irresponsible one. The victim
melle1228 on January 8, 2013 at 11:52 PM
Oops my post continued:
Your position is untenable because you are sticking up for the irresponsible one. The victim in all this is actually the CHILD and the taxpayers of Kansas because two or three if you count the partner irresponsible people decided it would be nice to create a child and then not take care of it.
What if both parents signed a contract abdicating responsibility? Does that mean neither has to support the child.. No it doesn’t because they can’t abdicate their responsibility via private contract. Parents cannot sign away the child’s right to financial support. And yes, I believe that is the correct interpretation of the law. I think this man is getting a raw deal but because of the person he donated to and his own bad judgement; not the state of Kansas whose duty it is to look out for the child’s best interests. He should have worked within the system when he was creating his contract. And if he didn’t want to do that then he should have made sure he was donating “genetic material” to a stable couple who could financially support a child.
I don’t find a lot of sympathy for an idiot who gets money to give his “genetic material” away thinking it will be easy money- and never takes into consideration the complexity of what he is doing. Maybe this case will make people think before they do stupid stuff- maybe not.
melle1228 on January 9, 2013 at 12:00 AM
No, it doesn’t.
I’ll let children with dead parents know immediately.
It’s not difficult to image at all. Wife and husband ask for sperm donation from Person B. Wife and husband agree to indemnify Person B from any child support liability. Before child is born, wife falls in love with Person C, kicks husband to the curb, and divorces him.
Who does the state pursue? Person B simply because he’s the father and because wife and ex-husband don’t have the desire or enough money to indemnify him?
Get back to me when you’re ready to thorough explore legal arguments.
blink on January 9, 2013 at 12:42 AM
Catastrophic failure.
1. He didn’t pass children along. He passed sperm along. Sperm isn’t a child. Sperm can’t become a child without someone deliberately combining it with something else. The cement analogy was germane.
2. You completely miss the point about Dred Scott. Precedent doesn’t make something right.
Laughable. It’s especially laughable since you agree that signing a contract with a heterosexual couple wouldn’t cause this problem.
Except that you’ve already agreed that they can under the right circumstances.
blink on January 9, 2013 at 12:48 AM
Let’s not be deliberately obtuse Mr. blink. William Marotta entered into an arrangement with a women with whom he was not married with the intent to cause the conception of a fatherless child; a child who would be fatherless by design. William Marotta then acted in accordance with that arrangement, with that women with whom he was not married, to intentionally cause the conception of a child who would be fatherless by intent and design. William Marotta did indeed, in accordance with that arrangement, cause the conception of a child who would be fatherless by intent and design.
Mike OMalley on January 9, 2013 at 6:54 AM
He passed along his sperm for the creation of a child. And now the child is seen as property something that can be signed away. Furthermore, we don’t know how the donation happened. It could have very well have happened the old fashioned way.
I understood precedent. I used the slavery analogy to be as dramatic as you have been. And also the difference between a slave and this man is that the slave does not get protection under the law. This man had protection under Kansas law had he followed it when he was making his contract. Oh and btw, precedent is when a court makes a ruling to make it so, but American law has ALWAYS recognized bio parents as being financially responsible. This is not precedent.
Ahhh what sticks in your craw is that this is a lesbian couple. Sorry but you are wrong and this can happen to a hetero couple. If the contract was the same shoddy crap, then the married husband could claim the child was not his. A DNA test would reveal that, and the state would go after the bio dad. They do this all the time to wives who have had affairs.
Actually no I said that the state should terminate financial responsibility. If the parent doesn’t want to be responsible for the child; the child deserves representation which is essentially the state. This makes sense since financial support is the RIGHT of the child not the parent thus there must be a compelling reason for the parent to be absolved of that right.
melle1228 on January 9, 2013 at 9:30 AM
\
He didn’t cause the conception. His donation was predicated upon an agreement.
Deny the woman benefits if you want. She shouldn’t have entered into the arrangement knowing how the state attempts to provide for children. Some children grow up poor. It’s sad, but it happens. I’d rather donate to a charity for the child, than see the state force this guy to pay.
blink on January 9, 2013 at 11:12 AM
Drama was the only thing that you succeeded in accomplishing. You failed to provide a germane analogy.
Dred Scott is the perfect example of how you are looking at this. You think that something is ok just because legal precedent exists.
More evidence that you are not smart enough to discuss this, and I’m a bit surprised that you just provided justification for the Dred Scott decision. The Dred Scott decision was wrong because a man should never have been considered a slave regardless of statute. But people like you touted Dred Scott as justification for slavery for years afterwards. Why? Because there was a legal precedent in a high court that supported something that was wrong.
Then so much for your claim that the husband would be considered the father despite the fact that he executed an agreement when he accepted the donation.
Except that they don’t “all the time…” States continue to hold the husband responsible for the child that was born while he was the husband.
Except that you think that sperm has rights, also. This man only donated sperm.
blink on January 9, 2013 at 11:26 AM
What’s really funny is that you think this is a good point. He “donated sperm” to a woman with an egg, which created a child. It’s not like he didn’t see that one coming! Even though he doesn’t appear to have been especially bright, he knew well enough that he was producing a child while takin absolutely no responsibility for the child.
I suspect that a lot of people get worked up about this story because it was a lesbian couple, and because they blame Kansas for not declaring same-sex marriage to be legal.
tom on January 9, 2013 at 11:55 AM
No, he knew that he was providing something for someone else that helped produce a child.
The company that sold the women the turkey baster that they used helped produce the child, too. You probably think that they should be help responsible, too.
No, I get worked up because it’s an example of the government demanding to be involved with a contract. I don’t like the idea of being forced to go to the government to sanction an agreement.
blink on January 9, 2013 at 1:06 PM
So he bears no responsibility for his actions. He was just contributing his sperm, and then “they” happeneed to use it to create a child using his very DNA.
Yep, he’s totally innocent.
You really cannot be this much of an idiot. Do you just have trouble admitting the obvious? He “contributed” his sperm specifically to create a child. The mechanics of how it fertilized the woman’s egg don’t change that fact. The child has his DNA, not the DNA of the ex-lover.
So now you want to act like an idiot, too. What next? Accuse me of blaming the turkey baster?
This is actually a perfect example of why the government is sometimes justified in being involved in a contract: the attempt to protect all parties to the contract. In this case, the contract — if it can truly be called that — was between a man and two women in a lesbian relationship. There was nothing in the contract that registered the lesbian ex-lover as a parent, therefore the lesbian ex-lover, not being a biological parent, had no legal responsibility to the child. The biological father did nothing to establish that he was not responsible for the child he fathered, and depended on the lesbians’ assertion that they would provide for the child. They didn’t.
He dug himself a very deep hole and left himself without protection. It’s not the government’s fault. If he now wants to terminate his legal responsibilities, he’ll have to make that case to the government, since he failed to do so beforehand.
tom on January 9, 2013 at 1:40 PM
That is why you whole argument is fundamentally flawed. This contract would have stayed private if not for the “mother” who asked the state to intervene. If you want to blame someone, blame the mother who can’t support the child. The government didn’t demand anything. And this man had legal recourse BEFORE this all happened. He CHOSE not to exercise it. The contract was not legal therefore no court will uphold it. In Kansas, you cannot terminate your parental rights privately.
And I truly find it hilarious that you keep alluding to the fact that I don’t know what I am talking about when you are clearly ignorant of family law. And clearly don’t understand what precedent actually means. Precedent is based on a judges ruling. This is not precedent. This is written in our law system by Democratically elected officials. It has ALWAYS been the case that the “genetic donor” or parent is legally responsible for the child. I see nothing wrong with that. If it wasn’t so then both parents would be able to abdicate their responsibilities privately. And we would have many more children being financially supported by taxpayer money.
I would have a problem with this if the state intervened and there was no need i.e., the child was being financially supported.. Or if the man did not have legal recourse to terminate his parental rights, but he did. He CHOSE not to exercise those legal rights.
melle1228 on January 9, 2013 at 1:55 PM
Yes he really is. He compared this man who had legal recourse to protect himself to a rape victim- and a slave.
Apparently according to blink if you have sex you would be able to get out of taking care of any children that results from sex because you were just loaning your genetic material.
melle1228 on January 9, 2013 at 1:57 PM
I knew a woman once who was very bitter against her ex-husband, and kept referring to him as “the sperm donor.” It was actually pretty funny, and I’ll admit that some men act like that’s all they ever are, but it was still hyperbole.
tom on January 9, 2013 at 2:02 PM
You didn’t address any of my arguments.
blink on January 9, 2013 at 4:19 PM
Are you somehow strange enough to think that I don’t blame a woman that accepted full responsibility for the sperm and then can’t meet those responsibilities?
Plenty of blame belongs with this woman. That doesn’t mean that the state is doing the right thing here.
blink on January 9, 2013 at 4:37 PM
You’re stubborn…and not in a good way. Try reading my post again…with yer eyes open and yer brain set to “On.”
And I practice a religion, not a denomination.
TXJenny on January 9, 2013 at 4:53 PM
First off, EEWW? Where did you think children came from the stork? Second off, you can’t sell children. You can’t make an agreement with someone that voids your responsibilities. I’ve always thought this whole men giving away there children through sperm was repugnant and devaluing of men and children. I hope the whole process is brought to an end. If you want to raise a child consider the child not yourself. Adopt someone.
Observation on January 10, 2013 at 9:55 AM
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Experts that supported legal precedents with respect to slave ownership law didn’t know what they were talking about either. It’s incredibly strange that you don’t understand this.
It’s hilarious that you think I don’t understand the concept of precedent.
Slave ownership laws were codified, too. That didn’t make it ok.
This isn’t true, but, that being said, I don’t necessarily see anything wrong with private adoption. But I’m sure a nanny stater such as you hates the idea.
Only because of big government lovers like you.
blink on January 10, 2013 at 9:58 AM
It’s obvious that you aren’t very bright. Dred Scott was an example of the law and courts being wrong. I clearly wasn’t comparing his man to a slave.
Additionally, I compared YOUR blame to someone that blames a rape victim for not taking more precautions.
Your inability to debate this on an intellectual level leaves me quite unimpressed by you.
I understood and acknowledged all the simpleton points you made about this case. I even helped you make some of your points properly so that we could move on to a higher level. However, you failed to realize that I completely understood the points you were making as evidenced by the fact that you continued to repeat yourself over and over. Then, you failed to understand the higher level argument being made.
blink on January 10, 2013 at 10:04 AM
That’s because you don’t.
So you object to the law that says the bio parent is responsible for the child. I see– apparently you think that Santa Claus should be responsible for children.
Again Blink, you have no knowledge of the family court system. Even private adoptions must be registered through the court system and the state.
Actually no that would be you. You believe that this man who was irresponsible about who he donated his “genetic material” and then didn’t utilize the legal system for protections afforded to him should be absolved of paying for this child while the taxpayers should be on the hook.
I think that this man has more responsibility to support this child then Joe Smoe in Kansas City who didn’t make the illegal contract with irresponsible mothers. You apparently believe Joe Schmoe should be on the hook, because this man made a “private” illegal irresponsible contract.
melle1228 on January 10, 2013 at 10:44 AM
LOL- Whatever–
You can’t even acknowledge that the state would not even have been involved in this case had the person he contracted to involved them.
You feel sorry for a man who had all the legal protections available to him and didn’t take it because he wanted to make a quick buck. And now you believe that the taxpayers have more of a responsibility to this child then a man who should have done due diligence when he was creating a human being.
I think it is you who is intellectually bereft.
For the record, there is no legal reason this is wrong. Dred Scott was wrong because the slave was not considered a person and had no legal protections. It violated the Constitution. Please cite to me where a bio parent being responsible for his offspring violates the Constitution.
This man had recourse under the law. There is no law to change. All the man had to do was go through the proper systems available to him.
melle1228 on January 10, 2013 at 10:51 AM
No. It’s because you’re not intelligent enough to realize what people do and don’t understand.
There is no law that claims that the bio parents are always responsible for a child. A 17 year old girl that gives her baby up for adoption is not responsible for the child after the adoption. Why do you continue to debate this issue so sloppily? Can’t you even try to debate this well?
I object to the fact that people always need the government’s permission to enter into such agreements.
Again, you’re sloppy. Private adoptions don’t need to be registered through the court system. They only need to be registered in order to avoid some legal trouble later (even though legal trouble can still surface).
Why can’t at least take a few moments to tighten up your arguments?
This is MORE than sloppy. This is dead wrong, and you know it. I don’t believe that the taxpayer should be on the hook, and you know that.
Again, you’re terrible at debating.
No, I don’t. Not at all. I’ve made that clear several times. It’s funny that you continue to claim that I believe this. Are you seriously unable to comprehend simple concepts that I conveyed in this thread?
Wow, I’d hate to be debating something that’s actually complicated with you.
blink on January 10, 2013 at 10:55 AM
So you object? The state wouldn’t have gotten involved at all had this mom not asked them to. Furthermore when you ask for state monies, you have to play the game. Ask any company that contracts with the state. This man should have been more aware of who he was contracting with. The state of Kansas is NOT violating the contract, the mom is. His beef is with her.
Apparently Blink, you think it is okay to circumvent the law if you don’t like it.
I’m sloppy.. Did you look at what you just wrote? And furthermore, “avoiding legal trouble” is exactly why this man should have utilized his legal avenues available to him.
Ahh yeah you do, because that is the state’s alternative. Go after the one who created the child or go after the taxpayer.
And I am still waiting how this violates the United State Constitution or the Kansas Constitution to put it into Dred Scott territory..
melle1228 on January 10, 2013 at 11:04 AM
Fully acknowledged, but completely meaningless.
That’s like saying that there would have been no problem with the private sale of my vehicle if the buyer hadn’t suddenly asked for assistance getting to the junk yard. It doesn’t matter what causes the government to invalidate my contract. What matters is that the government is invalidating my contract.
Now, since you lack sophistication, you will attempt to claim that I am comparing a child to a vehicle. So, I’ll preempt such a stupid claim. This example is merely about government control. You seem to support the idea that the government should ok all vehicle sales since a buyer might not be able to afford to properly dispose of a vehicle thus leaving the taxpayer obligated to remove the vehicle from the streets.
Why do you hate to comprehend material that you read. He didn’t make any bucks.
Again, no, no, no, no, no. How many more times are you going to write such inaccurate statements?
At least I’m getting you to finally admit that Dred Scott was wrong. People like you thought Dred Scott was the right decision given the laws that were on the books at the time. Btw, you do realize that Dred Scott was never reversed, right? People like you (people married to precedent) would never have allowed it.
blink on January 10, 2013 at 11:07 AM
That makes his position even worse under the law. In order for this to be a true private contract, there had to be some sort of consideration. If there wasn’t, it wasn’t a contract in ANY contract law. He didn’t even have a true private contract in any legal sense of the word.
Yeppers that is me- a big Dred Scott supporter.//
Again, where does this law violate the United States Constitution or the Kansas Constitution that puts it into Dred Scott territory..?
melle1228 on January 10, 2013 at 11:12 AM
Let me put this in the type of legal language that you might understand.
Duh.
Wow. Did you really just waste your time typing this AGAIN?
There are no words.
This man isn’t asking for any state monies, and no state monies should be paid.
You are an incredibly weak debater. You are forced to attribute absurd statements to me.
I’m claiming that it’s not right for the state to be invalidating the agreement that this guy made. Now, please acknowledge that you understand the difference so that anyone left reading this thread doesn’t assume that you are a dim bulb.
Thank you for acknowledging this fact.
Absolutely, and, not surprisingly, you didn’t understand it.
Ahh no, I don’t. I disagree with the state’s alternative. It’s funny that your argument relies on the fact that I think the taxpayer should be on the hook for this child. I don’t. Figure out a new argument and get back to me.
Again, it’s funny that you aren’t smart enough to realize that these aren’t the only two options here.
Wow, you really aren’t worth the time being wasted explaining the same thing over and over and over to you.
However, others might still be reading, so one last time. Dred Scott is an example of the courts being dead wrong about an issue. However, people like you pointed to Dred Scott and claimed that slave owners were right because the Supreme Court reaffirmed codified law. I’m telling you that laws and the courts can be wrong about what’s right, and Dred Scott is a perfect example of that. It doesn’t matter if you fail to grasp this concept. I can merely cut and paste this answer every time you continue to ask me.
blink on January 10, 2013 at 11:17 AM
That doesn’t change the fact that your claim was DEAD WRONG – just like much of what you’ve written in this thread.
I never claimed that you supported Dred Scott. I merely claimed that people like you touted Dred Scott as justification that certain government laws about slavery were right. However, you did come strangely close to implying that SCOTUS got it right given the codified laws at the time.
Wow, you really are a dim bulb.
blink on January 10, 2013 at 11:23 AM
Nope you fail again. Dred Scott was wrong because it violated the Constitution. Please remind me again how this violates the Constitution? Courts must follow laws and in order to say the law is wrong- it must be a violation of the Constitution-Law 101…
The man didn’t have a legal contract either private or public. There was no consideration and thus the private contract was not legal. And the didn’t go through the state and thus the public contract wasn’t legal. It is his fault- anyway you look at it for not protecting himself.
melle1228 on January 10, 2013 at 11:25 AM
LOL- My small point was wrong, but YOUR WHOLE point is wrong, because without consideration this man didn’t even have a legal private contract.
Yes you did several times or you wouldn’t have said this:
melle1228 on January 10, 2013 at 11:28 AM
Again, where does this law violate the United States Constitution or the Kansas Constitution that puts it into Dred Scott territory..?
I am not the one saying how wrong the courts are, but doesn’t have a fundamental understanding of how courts work. Courts must follow the law unless the law is unconstitutional. This law is not unconstitutional. If the Kansas voters want to change this law, I say more power to them, but the court is not wrong for following the law.
Your example Dred Scott was legally wrong, because it violated the United States Constitution.
And whether you think this law is wrong, is a matter of emotional opinion and has no basis in law. At least Dred Scott had legal standing.
melle1228 on January 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM
No, the Constitution was amended after Dred Scott. This gave the courts an out. I’m surprised that you didn’t know this, however I’m sure you will now attempt to offer some lame excuse.
And save your consideration and constitution arguments for someone else. Both these issues are quite easily argued. The problem will be that you will simply take the other side of the argument – just like the Dred Scott supporters of the day. They claimed that Dred Scott didn’t violate the constitution, too.
blink on January 10, 2013 at 11:37 AM
It’s just an example of how wrong you’ve been all along. Completely sloppy.
No, I didn’t. Wow, you make all types of unsubstantiated claims. Saying that you finally admitted something is NOT the same as saying that you previously believed differently.
Have you ever successfully debated ANYTHING in your life?
blink on January 10, 2013 at 11:40 AM
Well at least I finally got you to admit this, but I have a feeling that you’d be squealing about the taxpayer being on the hook or something.
That’s not what people like you were saying after Dred Scott. People like you were NOT claiming that the decision was unconstitutional. Your pea brains were not allowing you to grasp the concept that the courts could have been wrong.
blink on January 10, 2013 at 11:42 AM
Yes, melle1228, Dred Scott had legal standing. Thanks for proving my point.
blink on January 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM
Again you accuse me of supporting Dred Scott. Hint: I wasn’t alive when Dred Scott was. Furthermore, Dred Scott was unconstitutional and there were many who made that case during that time including Dred’s own lawyers. The court’s ruling was wrong because if violated the Constitution.
And if this decision violated the Constitution, I would be the first to call the court on it. It doesn’t violate the Constitution. Hence why I would be arguing against Dred Scott but not against this case.
Here is your argument in a nutshell Blink:
The man didn’t have a legal private contract. He didn’t have a legal public contract. And yet he wants the court to honor both. You don’t hold him responsible for his actions at all in not taking advantages of the legal protections available to him.
And you think the courts should honor his illegal contract just because you “feel” they are just wrong(stamp your feet, suck your teeth, cries tears).
And because I think the court’s hands are tied because this case does not violate the Constitution, I would have been Dred Scott supporter years ago despite the fact that Dred Scott very clearly violated equal protection.
Yeah Blink, think it is you who should bone up on debating. You don’t understand that your position is emotional and has no legal or logical basis.
melle1228 on January 10, 2013 at 11:52 AM
Yeah and this man does not. Go fricking take a class on contract law please.
melle1228 on January 10, 2013 at 11:52 AM
People who’ve never litigated anything (and probably never even practiced – melle1228, you know who you are) make me laugh when they regurgitate the basics from a third tier or below law school. Contracts? Please! Draft a brief and clearly articulate this guy’s consideration. That’s right. I knew you could.
Sloppy with the facts. I never accused you of supporting Dred Scott. I claimed that people like you supported Dred Scott. Frankly, someone like you doesn’t think for themselves enough to support Dred Scott in today’s day and age.
I am incredibly familiar with the libertarian constitutional argument dealing with private contracts, and I am incredibly familiar with the counter-arguments. The fact remains that big-government loving people like yourself will reject the libertarian argument and cling to the counter-argument. So, there’s no point in me even going there with you.
blink on January 10, 2013 at 11:22 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4