If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Topeka Capital-Journal)   Sometimes, it just doesn't pay to masturbate for money from strangers you meet on Craigslist   (cjonline.com) divider line 158
    More: Weird, Craigslist, Topeka, William Marotta, cash assistance, court cases, Department of Children, foster children, blood donors  
•       •       •

18996 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Dec 2012 at 10:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



158 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-28 10:56:06 PM

DeathCipris: Why does this have to go to court? You already agreed in WRITING that he was not to be held liable. You have no case. You lose. Good day, sir.

 
As I understand it, child support is owed to the child for the benefit of the child, not the parent. The parent has no standing to waive it.


I believe I've heard of a number of cases like this over the years, all of which seemingly amount to "people trying to do something important and life-changing without consulting an attorney before signing their life away on the back of a napkin".
 
2012-12-28 10:56:48 PM
Nice to see a bunch of people who couldn't be bothered to read the article assume that the women are pinching him for money, rather than the state pursuing him despite the women telling the state about the contract.
 
2012-12-28 10:57:35 PM

ThunderPelvis: Here's another good reason why gay marriage should be legal. Assuming that the couple has split, then the state could seek its pound of flesh from the mother's wife


Fairly certain there are one or two guys out there paying child support to a woman they were never married to.
 
2012-12-28 11:00:20 PM

epoch_destroi: Nice to see a bunch of people who couldn't be bothered to read the article assume that the women are pinching him for money, rather than the state pursuing him despite the women telling the state about the contract.


This. The state can't handle that gays can be happy
 
2012-12-28 11:02:18 PM

TomD9938: Fairly certain there are one or two guys out there paying child support to a woman they were never married to.


Or never impregnated.
pops like pop music
 
2012-12-28 11:03:30 PM

lohphat: make me some tea: I seem to remember a TFer who posted a thread saying he was doing this for a lesbian couple. Hmm.

I've posted in a thread that I have, but I have not posted a thread about it.


No it was someone else. I think he's gay to boot.
 
2012-12-28 11:05:12 PM

epoch_destroi: Nice to see a bunch of people who couldn't be bothered to read the article assume that the women are pinching him for money, rather than the state pursuing him despite the women telling the state about the contract.


Seems people understand this. What the women want matters not though.

It underlines the fact that the state doesnt give a fark about the mother playing house with somebody that didnt have dick to do with the childs existence.

Once the mother went on welfare... that kid was his.
 
2012-12-28 11:05:21 PM

DeathCipris: FTFA: "Marotta and the women, Topekans Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, signed an agreement holding him harmless for support of the child, a daughter Schreiner bore after being artificially inseminated."

Why does this have to go to court? You already agreed in WRITING that he was not to be held liable. You have no case. You lose. Good day, sir.


The state is the one pushing it. Being a Republican run state you already know he's going to be bent over to avoid the state having to pay for it.
 
2012-12-28 11:06:30 PM
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-28 11:06:43 PM

Gergesa: Hmmm this sounds like the sort of case that would cause men to avoid being a sperm donor.


Not really. If you donate to a sperm bank or do the donation in a clinic you will be fine. If you try to cut out the sperm bank or clinic and lawyers, you will probably get screwed down the line. There are procedures to protect if you want to do this type of stuff, follow those procedures.
 
2012-12-28 11:07:08 PM

What_Would_Jimi_Do: if it is his sperm, he is technically the father but also shouldn't be on the baby's birth certificate as father.

Donor. sounds like these lesbians had a plan. he shouldn't be responsible for a dime.

these lesbians need 20K a month, to keep up with the lifestyle the 3 year old is used to.



You are wrong on all levels.

He is certainly the father and someone other than the state has to pay. It's always been that way.
 
2012-12-28 11:07:27 PM

freewill: DeathCipris: Why does this have to go to court? You already agreed in WRITING that he was not to be held liable. You have no case. You lose. Good day, sir.

As I understand it, child support is owed to the child for the benefit of the child, not the parent. The parent has no standing to waive it.


I believe I've heard of a number of cases like this over the years, all of which seemingly amount to "people trying to do something important and life-changing without consulting an attorney before signing their life away on the back of a napkin".


And yet he was a donor. I would have to wonder if the laws for sperm donation would apply instead. This is a very, very, very nasty can of worms they are opening.
 
2012-12-28 11:07:57 PM
This is why they should have just blended fifty or so donations together so they could say they don't know who the dad is.
 
2012-12-28 11:09:33 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: Always use a 3rd party and always use a physician as the 3rd party


Too expensive. $5K a sample and a 5 sample minimum is common.

You can have a legal donation but you have to do your homework and have a contract and adoption paperwork at the ready. Also, if you're not prepared for the rare situation where you would have to care for the child, then don't do it.

I have the resulting child and her older sister whom I did not donate for in my will. I'm lucky that I'm part of their lives and their parents want me to be, including my parents who would not have grandchildren if not for this situation. Up to this point, I'm just the really cool "uncle".

So far, it's been a win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win for all involved.
 
2012-12-28 11:17:31 PM
Why did he give them his name? If they just wanted sperm it's there from just about any red-blooded man.
 
2012-12-28 11:18:52 PM
I've spanked it with two girls and one cup.
 
2012-12-28 11:20:37 PM
How much jiz would a jiz giver give if a jiz giver could give jiz?
 
2012-12-28 11:21:20 PM

TomD9938: ThunderPelvis: Here's another good reason why gay marriage should be legal. Assuming that the couple has split, then the state could seek its pound of flesh from the mother's wife

Fairly certain there are one or two guys out there paying child support to a woman they were never married to.


Fair point, but in those cases the men are (almost always) biologically related to the child.  Legally, the state would have a much harder time going after an ex-partner than a biological parent.
 
2012-12-28 11:22:53 PM
A very sticky situation for this Good Samaritan. So unfair.
 
2012-12-28 11:23:42 PM

PunGent: xant: JerkyMeat: Schroller said that after consulting with his wife, Marotta decided to donate free of charge rather than taking the $50.


Amature move.

This may actually be his biggest problem. Not accepting any money makes it a whole different transaction, and could possibly invalidate the contract. That's what the lesbians are betting on, anyway.

Based on the contract terms quoted in the article, I can't imagine a court giving them the win, but stranger things have happened.

Actually, he was probably screwed either way. Family courts can and do set aside private contracts if they deem it in the best interest of the child.


Well, child support is officially for the child. Not the parent. A parent cannot normally sign an agreement to cancel financial obligations to the child.

And this is a case where the state stepped in and paid the child's expenses, and is trying to get compensation from him. I'm not sure the mother is even a part of this.
 
2012-12-28 11:24:17 PM
/dafuqlist.org
 
2012-12-28 11:27:26 PM

ThunderPelvis: Legally, the state would have a much harder time going after an ex-partner than a biological parent.


Harder? Should be impossible.
 
2012-12-28 11:28:42 PM

xant: JerkyMeat: Schroller said that after consulting with his wife, Marotta decided to donate free of charge rather than taking the $50.


Amature move.

This may actually be his biggest problem. Not accepting any money makes it a whole different transaction, and could possibly invalidate the contract. That's what the lesbians are betting on, anyway.

Based on the contract terms quoted in the article, I can't imagine a court giving them the win, but stranger things have happened.


The lesbians aren't the ones doing this, the state is. They're interested in sticking someone with the bill, whether they really should get the bill doesn't enter into the picture.
 
2012-12-28 11:30:49 PM

ongbok: Gergesa: Hmmm this sounds like the sort of case that would cause men to avoid being a sperm donor.

Not really. If you donate to a sperm bank or do the donation in a clinic you will be fine. If you try to cut out the sperm bank or clinic and lawyers, you will probably get screwed down the line. There are procedures to protect if you want to do this type of stuff, follow those procedures. fleece you for what you can get for free from many people.


FTFY

It should be a simple contract. Sign away rights, sign away financial responsibility.

Our legal system is well and truly farked anyways, this is just the icing on the cake.
 
2012-12-28 11:31:16 PM
For any lesbian couples out there, check the local libraries. I've left plenty of free samples near the computers on the east-facing wall. Help yourself.
 
2012-12-28 11:31:19 PM

ThunderPelvis: the state would have a much harder time going after an ex-partner than a biological parent.


Yeah, looks like that may be what's going on here. TFA isnt really clear as to what happened to the old "dad", other than to say that the household has fallen on hard times.

She may be long gone by now.
 
2012-12-28 11:36:20 PM

iron_city_ap: So... the insemination wasn't performed by a licensed physician... Turkey baster or old fashioned way?


Old fashioned - a semen applicator shaped like Jodie Foster's fist.
 
2012-12-28 11:41:53 PM
That really was amateurish. He should have gotten a vasectomy first.
 
2012-12-28 11:42:08 PM
Maybe not for you
 
2012-12-28 11:46:21 PM
those who have posted that the mother could not sign away the child's right to support are correct -- no standing, contract against public policy.

the reason that the mother gave the state the father's name is because she wouldn't have been given support if she hadn't. since the 80's, "welfare reform" has required/entitled states that use federal funds as part of AFDC (aid to families with dependent children) to go after the non-custodial parent for any unpaid child support.

it gets worse -- AFDC is based on a formula (varies from state to state), child support in these cases is based largely on the non-custodial parent's income. if the deadbeat dad is making good money, the state can collect more in unpaid child support than they pay the mom in AFDC. where does that extra money go? general fund.

a lawyer, not your lawyer.
 
2012-12-28 11:46:41 PM
What he should have done is maintained his anonymity throughout the donation process. If he used a throwaway email address and never gave them any personally identifying information then he would never have had to worry about anything. Well I suppose the government could have traced his ip address but there are ways around that too.
 
2012-12-28 11:47:17 PM
"Direct deposits" get the same protections as going through a sperm bank or fertility specialist.

At first I was outraged. Then I skimmed the story. They didn't have a licensed physician perform the insemination. So either they used a turkey baster, went to some back alley inceptionist, or they did it the old fashioned way. I'm guessing it was that last method. Now the "financially stable" couple isn't so stable and someone's seeking assistance from the government and the government expects the father to support his child.

Since the insemination didn't take place within the guidelines that would exempt the guy from financial responsibility, he's proper farked. While the women would be unable to make any financial claim against him, the state made no such agreement. The women don't have the authority to provide an exemption on behalf of a third party. If he had gone through the proper donation procedures, he wouldn't be in this mess. If nobody was requesting financial support from the government, he wouldn't be in this mess.
 
2012-12-28 11:48:03 PM
On Oct. 3, attorney Mark McMillan filed a petition on behalf of the Department of Children and Families seeking a ruling that Marotta is the father of Schreiner's child and owes a duty to support her. It said the department provided cash assistance totaling $189 for the girl for July through September 2012 and had paid medical expenses totaling $5,884.96.

Schroller, an attorney with Topeka-based Swinnen & Associates, said the state became involved after the mother fell on hard times and applied for financial assistance through the state.

She said of Schreiner: "My understanding is that after being pressed on paternity of the child, she gave them William's name as a sperm donor. The state then filed this suit to determine paternity."

/So much for the "financially stable" lesbian couple. They file for food stamps, and financial assistance, and instead of saying "I dont know who the father is, you decide to throw him to the wolves for doing you a favor. And he didn't even take your lousy fifty bucks. But you're sure going to take his. So much for your word on a contract. farking biatch. And the guy is an idiot, just because you sign a paper saying that you have no parental rights, and they wont come after you, that doesn't mean shiat to the state.
 
2012-12-28 11:48:31 PM

jtown: "Direct deposits" get the same protections as going through a sperm bank or fertility specialist.


Damnit. They don't get the same protections. Don't do what Donny Don't Does.
 
xcv
2012-12-28 11:48:36 PM

omeganuepsilon: ongbok: Gergesa: Hmmm this sounds like the sort of case that would cause men to avoid being a sperm donor.

Not really. If you donate to a sperm bank or do the donation in a clinic you will be fine. If you try to cut out the sperm bank or clinic and lawyers, you will probably get screwed down the line. There are procedures to protect if you want to do this type of stuff, follow those procedures. fleece you for what you can get for free from many people.

FTFY

It should be a simple contract. Sign away rights, sign away financial responsibility.

Our legal system is well and truly farked anyways, this is just the icing on the cake.


It's not a simple contract between two individuals when the state gets involved.

Otherwise men can sign away all financial responsibility for child support and let the state pick up tab for their children.

To keep it simple, sperm donations should be done through a clinic and kept anonymous until the kid is 18, or recognize gay relationships so the other same-sex partner is considered the second parent, or make healthcare single-payer so women don't get billed in the delivery room.
 
2012-12-28 11:50:44 PM
I'm sure it's been said.

I'll gladly masturbate for any lesbian as long as they let me watch

and aren't like two hippos floundering in the night with giant h.ross perot sucking sounds
 
2012-12-28 11:51:09 PM

ElBarto79: Why would the mother tell the state who the father is? Just say it was a one night stand, what are they going to do?


/because she wants his cash. Her word to not hold him responsible lasted about as long as her relationship with the other girl did.  He's gonna pay now.  Teach him to do someone a favor.  That shiat wont happen again.
 
2012-12-28 11:53:44 PM
This may actually be his biggest problem. Not accepting any money makes it a whole different transaction, and could possibly invalidate the contract. That's what the lesbians are betting on, anyway.

The lesbian parents aren't seeking anything from him. The breadwinner of the couple lost her job and applied for financial assistance from the government.

The state is trying to save a buck and extract the money from the biological father rather than have it come from the state welfare funds.

From an emotional standpoint, I think the state should pay and this guy shouldn't owe anything. From a logical standpoint, this is why I avoid Craigslist. Too many deals which have little to no protection under the law.
 
2012-12-29 12:06:17 AM

freewill: DeathCipris: Why does this have to go to court? You already agreed in WRITING that he was not to be held liable. You have no case. You lose. Good day, sir.
 
As I understand it, child support is owed to the child for the benefit of the child, not the parent. The parent has no standing to waive it.


Bingo.

The State will be seeking child support from both parents to cover the assistance that the kid received from the State.  The child support guidelines specify a total amount of support due to the child based (mainly) upon the combined incomes of the parents.  Each parent is responsible for a share in proportion of his/her income to the combined incomes.

If this guy is found to be a donor, then the State will go after the mother for the full amount.  Only her income will be used to calculate the monthly payment due.

I'm surprised Mr. Donor's wife was OK with this deal.
 
2012-12-29 12:07:23 AM
This is a case where the laws haven't caught up with times. When this happened the birth certificate should list both of the lesbians and the sperm donor only for future reference, like the child wanting to now about any family medical conditions.
 
2012-12-29 12:07:24 AM
From the comments: This is huge. As a person that has sold sperm, I am very concerned about this case. If the child support is granted, I could end up having the state or individuals coming after me and I did not even get to have sex with any of the women.

F*cking golden.
 
2012-12-29 12:08:09 AM

Bit'O'Gristle: On Oct. 3, attorney Mark McMillan filed a petition on behalf of the Department of Children and Families seeking a ruling that Marotta is the father of Schreiner's child and owes a duty to support her. It said the department provided cash assistance totaling $189 for the girl for July through September 2012 and had paid medical expenses totaling $5,884.96.

Schroller, an attorney with Topeka-based Swinnen & Associates, said the state became involved after the mother fell on hard times and applied for financial assistance through the state.

She said of Schreiner: "My understanding is that after being pressed on paternity of the child, she gave them William's name as a sperm donor. The state then filed this suit to determine paternity."

/So much for the "financially stable" lesbian couple. They file for food stamps, and financial assistance, and instead of saying "I dont know who the father is, you decide to throw him to the wolves for doing you a favor. And he didn't even take your lousy fifty bucks. But you're sure going to take his. So much for your word on a contract. farking biatch. And the guy is an idiot, just because you sign a paper saying that you have no parental rights, and they wont come after you, that doesn't mean shiat to the state.


You hit it on the head with that. There is a procedure to do through that would have kept this from happening to him. Lesson here is to do your research before you go doing stuff like this. A quick Google search or a call to a lawyer would have saved this guy a lot of headache.
 
2012-12-29 12:10:57 AM

Oznog: Well, child support is officially for the child. Not the parent. A parent cannot normally sign an agreement to cancel financial obligations to the child.


Cannot be stressed enough in this situation. Once you agree to "parent" a child, whether through traditional sex, or in this case through an apparent donation - you should consider yourself officially liable down the road. Just like a parent cannot make certain decisions for a child (such as surrendering citizenship, etc.) as an attorney I would be very wary that any court would ultimately allow for a parent to simply surrender the right of the child to financial support from the other contributing "partner" to the procreation.

From a taxpayer/state point of view: Who played an active role into bringing this child into the world? - the state or the "donor"? From whom should the state move to recover in case the child ultimately ends up on state support? - the taxpayer or the donor who voluntarily agreed to parent (create) the child?

You play the game, don't be surprised if the rules ultimately differ from what you may have thought they were to begin with. Private contracts are set aside all the time because they counter an important state/societal interest. In this case, the interest being that children created voluntarily should be the financial responsibility of those who participated in the creation, not the taxpayer who had no say or role in the creation of said child.
 
2012-12-29 12:13:04 AM

fredbox: Yep, he's hosed. Gentlemen, please remember, vasectomies are cheap and convenient, relative to the alternative.


That would sorta put a crimp on the whole sperm selling/donating thing.


jtown: inceptionist


BWAAAAAAAHHHHHMMMM!
 
2012-12-29 12:14:56 AM
Goddamnit. I hate Brownbackistan so very much.
 
2012-12-29 12:15:36 AM

Princess Ryans Knickers: freewill: DeathCipris: Why does this have to go to court? You already agreed in WRITING that he was not to be held liable. You have no case. You lose. Good day, sir.

As I understand it, child support is owed to the child for the benefit of the child, not the parent. The parent has no standing to waive it.


I believe I've heard of a number of cases like this over the years, all of which seemingly amount to "people trying to do something important and life-changing without consulting an attorney before signing their life away on the back of a napkin".

And yet he was a donor. I would have to wonder if the laws for sperm donation would apply instead. This is a very, very, very nasty can of worms they are opening.


Not really.  K.S.A. 23-2208(f) provides an out for a sperm donor who does things properly:

"The donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor's wife is treated in law as if he were not the birth father of a child thereby conceived, unless agreed to in writing by the donor and the woman."

That they met via Craigslist doesn't matter.  The sperm donation should have been done through a doctor, not a Dixie cup.
 
2012-12-29 12:15:47 AM

BarkingUnicorn: Each parent is responsible for a share in proportion of his/her income to the combined incomes.


in many states, (california, for instance), the custodial arrangements also figure into the calculation of each parent's support obligation. but since these AFDC/support cases always involve a absentee/deadbeat dad and a broke mom, the calculation comes down to the dad's income -- as i said in my previous post.

BarkingUnicorn: If this guy is found to be a donor, then the State will go after the mother for the full amount.  Only her income will be used to calculate the monthly payment due..


mom is broke. i will be greatly surprised if this guy is found to be a donor and not a dad.
 
2012-12-29 12:23:23 AM
i236.photobucket.com

Does not approve.
 
2012-12-29 12:27:33 AM

ricochet4: those who have posted that the mother could not sign away the child's right to support are correct -- no standing, contract against public policy.

the reason that the mother gave the state the father's name is because she wouldn't have been given support if she hadn't. since the 80's, "welfare reform" has required/entitled states that use federal funds as part of AFDC (aid to families with dependent children) to go after the non-custodial parent for any unpaid child support.

it gets worse -- AFDC is based on a formula (varies from state to state), child support in these cases is based largely on the non-custodial parent's income. if the deadbeat dad is making good money, the state can collect more in unpaid child support than they pay the mom in AFDC. where does that extra money go? general fund.

a lawyer, not your lawyer.


You are nobody's lawyer.  The State cannot collect more than the State has spent on the child, including the child's portion of AFDC but not the mother's.  Any child support paid in excess of the State's expenditures on the child belongs to the child.
 
2012-12-29 12:31:11 AM

ricochet4: BarkingUnicorn: Each parent is responsible for a share in proportion of his/her income to the combined incomes.

in many states, (california, for instance), the custodial arrangements also figure into the calculation of each parent's support obligation. but since these AFDC/support cases always involve a absentee/deadbeat dad and a broke mom, the calculation comes down to the dad's income -- as i said in my previous post.

BarkingUnicorn: If this guy is found to be a donor, then the State will go after the mother for the full amount.  Only her income will be used to calculate the monthly payment due..

mom is broke. i will be greatly surprised if this guy is found to be a donor and not a dad.


After reading the applicable Kansas law, I agree:  he's on the hook because he didn't go through a doctor.
 
Displayed 50 of 158 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report