Think twice about donating your, er, chromosomes, guys....

raisindot

Okay, I know it's touches on politics, gummint, and gay marriage, but this is truly ridiculous no matter where you are on the political spectrum.

A district court is Kansas ruled that a man who donated sperm to a non-married *** couple has to pay child support because the couple has since broke up and the woman who has custody can't pay her bills. Nevermind that he and the couple had signed an agreement absolving him of any financial responsibility.

This never would have happened in a non-gay marriage. http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/justice/kansas-sperm-donation/

Bob Luken

Do it legal. That's the lesson here. They didn't make the "donation" through a legally approved clinic. I don't think it has anything to do with the couple being gay.

jd50ae

That is not the first time it has happened.

perkinke

Yup, if I remember correctly it happened essentially the same way in a California case a couple years ago. I suspect that the guy can petition to have his parental rights terminated and have his responsibilities removed that way, but not totally sure how that works in each state.

clearlysuspect

raisindot:

This never would have happened in a non-gay marriage.

How in the world can you make that kind of assumption. What if a heterosexual couple was having problems with fertility on the male side of the relationship and were seeking a second donor. Problem isn't that they were gay. They problem is they were acting outside of the laws in their state!

jsnake

Dang. If you pay child support and later find out the kid isn't yours, even if she knew it the entire time, the courts will not make her repay you. That floors me as well as this. Poor fool.

perkinke

clearlysuspect:

raisindot:

This never would have happened in a non-gay marriage.

How in the world can you make that kind of assumption. What if a heterosexual couple was having problems with fertility on the male side of the relationship and were seeking a second donor. Problem isn't that they were gay. They problem is they were acting outside of the laws in their state!

The way i took his statement was that there are already laws in place to address this issue in legally recognized marriages. To me, this issue is just another good reason to eliminate the gay marriage bans, then the law would be the law for all relationships and we wouldn't act like it is some novel and unique situation that demands separate treatment.

PAtoNH

certainly you should have it all in writing… have a lawyer look it over… notarized… hope you are lucky in life in general… not mind picking up college tuition, worse comes to worse, lol!

Tyland64

This is becoming very common. My niece works at a free legal workshop and has done several donor protection contracts. It protects the donor from future problems. Seems smart to me.

jd50ae

Knew a guy once who didn't tell his wife about his vasectomy until after she got pregnant. She still sued him for support after the divorce.

Amos Umwhat

clearlysuspect:

raisindot:

This never would have happened in a non-gay marriage.

How in the world can you make that kind of assumption. What if a heterosexual couple was having problems with fertility on the male side of the relationship and were seeking a second donor. Problem isn't that they were gay. They problem is they were acting outside of the laws in their state!

Perhaps the problems is that the couple involved had no Y chromosome? Had the couple both had Y chromosomes, there would have already been someone to hang the bills on, therefore no need for a lawsuit.

Not terribly politically correct, but, reality correct?

jsnake

jd50ae:

Knew a guy once who didn't tell his wife about his vasectomy until after she got pregnant. She still sued him for support after the divorce.

Dang. She didn't win that one correct?

jd50ae

jsnake:

jd50ae:

Knew a guy once who didn't tell his wife about his vasectomy until after she got pregnant. She still sued him for support after the divorce.

Dang. She didn't win that one correct?

No. The judge, lawyer and everyone concerned laughed for months. The lawyer handling her was ridiculed from the bench and everyone there.

perkinke

jd50ae:

jsnake:

jd50ae:

Knew a guy once who didn't tell his wife about his vasectomy until after she got pregnant. She still sued him for support after the divorce.

Dang. She didn't win that one correct?

No. The judge, lawyer and everyone concerned laughed for months. The lawyer handling her was ridiculed from the bench and everyone there.

Frighteningly, it's not so stupid in my state. The law says that a child born during a marriage is presumed to be the husband's and makes him responsible for it. It is a crazy uphill battle to overturn that. I understand how that rule came into being with the presumption that women don't cheat (HA!) and that guys will dodge responsibility to their children to stick it to an ex-wife (sadly happens), but I think it has probably outlived it's usefulness.

Thanatos0320

jsnake:

Dang. If you pay child support and later find out the kid isn't yours, even if she knew it the entire time, the courts will not make her repay you. That floors me as well as this. Poor fool.

that can be fought because what she's doing is can argued that she's stealing/scamming/whatever you want to call it.

jsnake

Thanatos0320:

jsnake:

Dang. If you pay child support and later find out the kid isn't yours, even if she knew it the entire time, the courts will not make her repay you. That floors me as well as this. Poor fool.

that can be fought because what she's doing is can argued that she's stealing/scamming/whatever you want to call it.

I agree with you but I have seen several rulings where a judge will stop the support but not make her repay a dime because it would cause hardship for the children. The money is presumed to be the children's and not hers.

Martel

perkinke:

I understand how that rule came into being with the presumption that women don't cheat (HA!) and that guys will dodge responsibility to their children to stick it to an ex-wife (sadly happens), but I think it has probably outlived it's usefulness.

Laws in my neighboring state, and most states, I think, favor the mother in these situations. I'm not sure that's always a bad thing, but I've seen it cause a lot of harm, too. I have a friend going through some of this, not with AI, but a kid that the wife doesn't really want. Of course, she's trying to get every concession possible from him before saying he can have the max amount of primary custody. Funny thing is, she calls him every time she's watching the kid, claims she has a headache (it's because two-year-olds cry and she can't figure out how to play with, entertain, or care for a kid, so she just lets her cry) and asks him to come get the child.