NickelP: Theaetetus: Contract

Understanding that the right of child support free speech is the right of the child Gat_00, I, Theaetetus, nonetheless permanently and irrevocably waive said right for the child Gat_00, in exchange for a mention in NickelP's profile. I further waive the child's Gat_00's right to bring suit over this contract for any reason, including without limitation unenforceability, unconstitutionality, and unconscionability, as explained in the following exhibit A:

GAT_00: And if you sign a contract [waiving the rights of a third party] that should be upheld...the state has no right to override that contract.

Signed this day, January 3, 2013,
Theaetetus

Executed on this end

You two really are a couple of children, and I mean that literally.  This is how 5 year olds act when they hear things they don't like.

Exception Collection: Theaetetus: I'm not sure you actually understand what you're saying. As you note, adopted kids have two birth certificates, listing biological parents and adoptive parents... The latter is not going to be preferred for measurement of consanguinity, just as the former is not going to be preferred for, say, inheritance. But we're not talking about probate issues, we're talking about blood lines, so how the hell could something listing adoptive parents take priority over something listing biological parents? "Gosh, Billy, I guess you can marry your blood relative Sally, since you were adopted!"

Go look up any state statute on marital consanguinity requirements. You'll see specific mention of biological relationships in there.

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse and difficult or if you honestly thought that I meant the adopted one takes precedence for consanguinity.  My point was that that problem has already been solved for children adopted by straight couples, so why can't the same method be used for LGBT couples that have a sperm donor - rather than following your suggestion of having a modified birth certificate that lists genetic relations as well as the parents.  Birth Certificates are used for a number of things (to get ID, for one; to prove suitability for work, for another), and there's no reason for everyone that looks at it to know "Oh, she had a sperm donor" or "Oh, she was adopted" - one form, multiple copies, with the one listing genetic family sealed unless the donor(s) and parent(s) approve.

Sure, they could do two birth certificates rather than just adding an optional line on a single one. Doesn't really make any difference except for the cost of forms. Although I'd disagree with one being sealed unless the donor and parents approve - that kinda defeats the purpose on the genetics side.

NickelP: Exception Collection: Theaetetus: Sure, they could do two birth certificates rather than just adding an optional line on a single one. Doesn't really make any difference except for the cost of forms. Although I'd disagree with one being sealed unless the donor and parents approve - that kinda defeats the purpose on the genetics side.

Kinda, yet it's exactly how most states handle adoptions.  Maybe accidental consanguinity isn't as big of a problem as you think.

/If you have two completely different methods of doing the same thing for two similar but not identical issues, YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. Sperm donations should be handled exactly like adoptions.

Not disagreeing with you, but in the scope of this article that would be like if you just dropped your kid off with some couple you found on craigslist and figured their wouldn't be any legal issues with that later.

Was that wrong? They gave me $10 and a used floor rug for Gat_00.

Exception Collection: NickelP: Not disagreeing with you, but in the scope of this article that would be like if you just dropped your kid off with some couple you found on craigslist and figured their wouldn't be any legal issues with that later.

Not really.  He signed a legal document - which I assume means a lawyer was involved.

Not necessarily - you can draw up legal documents on your own, without ever seeing a lawyer. You just may run into pitfalls like this one where it's unenforceable.

Theaetetus: Exception Collection: NickelP: Not disagreeing with you, but in the scope of this article that would be like if you just dropped your kid off with some couple you found on craigslist and figured their wouldn't be any legal issues with that later.

Not really.  He signed a legal document - which I assume means a lawyer was involved.

Not necessarily - you can draw up legal documents on your own, without ever seeing a lawyer. You just may run into pitfalls like this one where it's unenforceable.

Artificial insemination is costly, and probably wouldn't be covered by insurance if the fertile gay mom just didn't want a boy peepee inside of her. Since they did not use a doctor or clinic, we can assume that the insemination took place the old fashioned way. Since the split of the two-parent family put the birth mom and one dependent on welfare, we can assume that this was not a financially secure couple to start with. Lawyers are also pricey. Which makes me think that the contract was DIY, which is probably why the state is not recognizing it.

Yes it sucks that any idjit with working naughty parts can form babby, but childless couples have to jump through hoops and pay $$$$ to have planned and very wanted kids. But the upside of that is that ibeing able to pay that money is an indication that the parents are going to be able to support the resulting child.

This couple probably should have concentrated on their relationship and becomming financially ready before having a kid. But I could say that about a whole lot of families in this country.

Marotta has already spent more than ten percent of his yearly salary on legal feed.


Great, he's gotta buy the lawyers food too? That's just unfair.

Generation_D: If he didn't use a doctor, how'd he donate?  Old fashioned turkey baster?

Yeah traditional sex I believe. The only difference is there was a contract that stated he didn't owe anything and didn't have any rights. This is no difference between a couple breaking up and writing up an agreement that the guy doesn't have any rights/owe anything. The state isn't obliged to recognized such a contract as it didn't sign onto the contract, whereas with actual medically recognized sperm donation that state does have an agreement/understanding .

Marotta said he was shocked, "At which point I'm going, wow, no good deed seed goes unpunished."

FTFH

thismomentinblackhistory: I'll try to sum up a funny story that happened a few years ago:
I got a vasectomy.
I met a girl soon afterwards. She was nice and attractive but with a selfish streak that raised a big red flag. She was 32 at the time and I could practically HEAR her biological clock ticking. Regardless, she was a good lay, easy on the eyes, and reasonably good company.
I did NOT tell her about my vasectomy and I always used a condom with her to protect against STDs. She assumed, obviously, that the condom was only used for birth control. Silly girl.
We date for a few months. I never made any move towards commitment but she brought it up ocassionally. For me, this was a casual but pleasant relationship. For her - as I was to find out - it was part of life-changing series of events that she was planning very carefully.
Four months into dating, I get the "I'm pregnant" talk. She's going on and on about how the condom must have broke and now we really need to think about getting married "for the baby". She's positively giddy. She has a baby in her and she thinks she's gonna have a good meal ticket (me) to go along with her new 7lb annuity.
At this point, I'm just as giddy. I get to pull the reverse "oops" on her. I figured that she slept with some bad boy and got knocked up. Good thing I was using condoms! Better still that I have a serious mistrust of women who can't think beyond their own uteri.
So I wait a couple of days to "think about all this." I meet her again. I say I don't want kids and that she should have an abortion. I know where this is going and sure enough it goes there. She goes completely bat**** insane on me. There were the usual insults about my manhood. There were threats of legal action. It was all very ugly and I was loving every minute of it.
Well, I let her stew for a few days. She leaves me nasty messages on my phone. She sends awful emails. I'm laughing hysterically.
It was time to drop the hammer. While she was stewing I was busy. First I get a notarized copy from the urologist who performed the vasectomy. Next I get a notarized copy of the TWO test results indicating a "negative test result for sperm" to show I'm sterile and shooting blanks. Finally, I get a letter from a shark attorney stating he has seen the other documents and is prepared to litigate against this woman if she continues to communicate with me in such an unpleasant manner. Also, the letter states that we will insist on DNA testing to show that the baby is not mine. I'm ready.
I meet with this woman at her place. I bring flowers and a small bit of jewelry to show I am willing to reconcile and assume my responsibilities as a new father. I also have stuck in my pocket the documents I have prepared.
She's all giddy again. Her plan is going perfectly - or so she thinks. We talk about our future. We have some pretty good sex. Then, as I am about to walk out the door, I ask her the $64,000 question. "Are you sure that this baby is mine?"
Well, she goes bat**** insane again. Hell, she ought to. Her plan could completely unravel if there is ANY question about my paternity. Oh, she's really screaming now. How dare I question her morals. Do I think she's a slut. I'm just trying to weasel out of my responsibilities... blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda.
I'm not really mad. I'm kind of embarrassed for her. But since she won't shut up and the neighbors can hear all of this, I ask her to step back inside and sit down. She sits on the sofa and calms down a bit. She is glaring at me with all the moral self-righteousness that only a woman can muster up. She thinks she has me trapped. She is 100% convinced her plan has worked. Oh, the tangled web of lies and deceit she has wrought around herself and I am about to hack through them with a few pieces of paper.
I reach into my pocket slowly. I extract the three pieces of paper and unfold them slowly and deliberately.
I tell her simply, "You're screwed".
Her look doesn't change. There is no way she can fathom what I have prepared.
I continue. "I am sterile"
Her look changes just a bit. Something is beginning to sink in. Naturally, she reverts to women's logic. "You're full of ****. You're trapped and you know it."
I hold up the letter and the test results. "Three months before we met, I had a vasectomy. Here is a notarized letter from him stating what I had done. Here are two test results showing that I tested negative for the presence of sperm. Blanks. I am shooting blanks. That baby inside you is simply not mine."
This woman is not to be swayed by logic and clear documentation. "Bull****, those are fakes."
I was ready for that. "No, they are real. This last piece of paper is from my attorney. It's a simple letter to you that states if you pursue any kind of legal action against me for child support that I will insist on a DNA test to prove paternity, that is, to prove that your baby is not mine."
I give the woman all the documents. She reads them slowly, deliberately. With each passing second she can feel in her soul that she has made a very bad mistake. With denial swept away, she started to cry. It's a small cry at first. Then it becomes deeper and more painful. By the time she gets to the letter from the lawyer she is sobbing.
I had no sympathy for her. I turned and walked out the door. Even after I closed the door I could still hear her sobbing.
Epilogue -
I never heard directly from this woman again. I did hear through my friends that she did indeed have the baby. I also heard that the real father was some guy in a band she had met. I assumed that after 30, women stopped going after musicians, bikers, criminals, and thugs. Silly me for thinking the best of American women.
The Moral of the Story -
Get a vasectomy but keep it a secret.

You do know that story makes you out to look like all kind of an asshole, right?

Exception Collection: NickelP: Not disagreeing with you, but in the scope of this article that would be like if you just dropped your kid off with some couple you found on craigslist and figured their wouldn't be any legal issues with that later.

Not really.  He signed a legal document - which I assume means a lawyer was involved.  The women should have taken care of everything else on their end.  Unfortunately, while Kansas has no explicit "no gay adoptions" law, there are no records of adoptions by LGBT couples being accepted.  Even if they were, the odds of the birth cert being changed are low - many states that do allow same sex adoption don't allow birth certificates to show both mothers/fathers.


If I understand this correctly, the only reason there is any sort of issue at all is because the state is having to cough up the money via welfare. The mother's don't want the donor to have to pay. Only the state does.

And from a certain point of view. they have a point. Why should the tax payers be paying for this? If the mothers can't afford to support the baby, the state shouldn't have to...

Theaetetus: NickelP: Exception Collection: NickelP: doglover: NickelP: You are right, we should just give wellfare and waive any child support responsibility to any couple who says he just 'donated' sperm.

If they have a notarized contract, then yes.

If you can't care for your kid, you should lose custody until such time as you can. They can be raised by the state and taught how to be productive members of society. An elite caste of hipsters who are abandon the US under the guise of a horrible childhood but are actually loyal spies to Uncle Sam and provide us all the intel we need to finally conquer the great Northern Aggressor: Canadia.

You can get a notary stamp for like 50 bucks.  Back date that shiat and you are set.

If you want to jump over piles of laws because of your special situation, then it isn't unreasonable to ask you to handle your side in a legal and responsible way.

How about we compromise:  Put both women on the birth certificate.  Suddenly there are two parents involved, so if they still qualify for benefits, there's no reason to go after a third party.

Seems reasonable to me

Problem: birth certificates are important for genealogy and measurement of consanguinity. You wouldn't want this kid accidentally breeding with his or her half-sibling, not having realized that they were related.
So, add a third line on the certificate for Parent Assuming Parental Rights of Biological Parent #1.

Not really. It takes a few generations of sibling breeding in most cases before the flippers come out. Cousins have less chance of producing flipper babies than 40 year olds women.

So, just put the actual parents on the certificate and ignore the biological donor.

GAT_00: NickelP: Theaetetus: Contract

Understanding that the right of child support free speech is the right of the child Gat_00, I, Theaetetus, nonetheless permanently and irrevocably waive said right for the child Gat_00, in exchange for a mention in NickelP's profile. I further waive the child's Gat_00's right to bring suit over this contract for any reason, including without limitation unenforceability, unconstitutionality, and unconscionability, as explained in the following exhibit A:

GAT_00: And if you sign a contract [waiving the rights of a third party] that should be upheld...the state has no right to override that contract.

Signed this day, January 3, 2013,
Theaetetus

Executed on this end

You two really are a couple of children, and I mean that literally.  This is how 5 year olds act when they hear things they don't like.

While, yeah, they're being kind of dickish, but if you know 5 year olds who make up pretend legal contracts when they hear things they don't like, these kids need to be in like high school or something.

In sealed adoptions and anonymous legal donations, the bio parents are nowhere on the birth certificate.

"it didn't meet the primary requirement of Kansas statute 23-2208(f) that Schreiner have a licensed physician perform the artificial insemination."

So because SHE farked up, the state is attempting to hold HIM responsible so THEY can deny her welfare support (for which she'd been paying into like everyone else, until she fell upon hard times).
100% bullshiat.

2 Replies: "it didn't meet the primary requirement of Kansas statute 23-2208(f) that Schreiner have a licensed physician perform the artificial insemination."

So because SHE farked up, the state is attempting to hold HIM responsible so THEY can deny her welfare support (for which she'd been paying into like everyone else, until she fell upon hard times).
100% bullshiat.

He was in the bed, too, of his own free will. He should have made sure the contract was legal before completing the donation. The fark up belongs to all three of the adults here.