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.
Duplicate of another approved link: 7508289


(Fox 4 KC)   Sperm donor ordered to pay child support to the couple for whom he fathered a child. Status immediately changes from "sperm donor" to just "donor"   (fox4kc.com) divider line 72
    More: Asinine, child support, legal defense fund  
•       •       •

468 clicks; Favorite

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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-03 03:30:01 AM
Know how I know you didn't see this on Fark a couple of days ago?
 
2013-01-03 04:03:27 AM
Oh, I get it. I don't know why I didn't see this before. There is a contest among several states to see who can be the greatest embarrassment to the country.

// Eureka moment or something.
 
2013-01-03 07:40:51 AM

This About That: Oh, I get it. I don't know why I didn't see this before. There is a contest among several states to see who can be the greatest embarrassment to the country.


To my knowledge there isn't a single state that honors this type of 'contract', the only way to genuinely do this is to use a donor bank. Some donor banks will act as an intermediary for a specific donation, others won't.
 
2013-01-03 08:12:02 AM

This is why you print up your own fake business card for the glory hole.

PHIL SYUUP
SPERM DONOR
"One shot, one fill."
513-8008
 
2013-01-03 08:14:20 AM
If he didn't use a doctor, how'd he donate?  Old fashioned turkey baster?
 
2013-01-03 08:15:03 AM
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get into that kind of arrangement without consulting a lawyer first.

Supposing this guy did that and the lawyer gave him bad advice... would it be feasible for him to sue the lawyer into paying the child support?
 
2013-01-03 08:16:39 AM
<i>Marotta has already spent more than ten percent of his yearly salary on legal feed. </>

He should save some and get that lead laced black market shiat from Asia.

This About That: Oh, I get it. I don't know why I didn't see this before. There is a contest among several states to see who can be the greatest embarrassment to the country.

// Eureka moment or something.


You are right, we should just give wellfare and waive any child support responsibility to any couple who says he just 'donated' sperm.  No way that could go horribly wrong.

Maybe Craigslist Lesbian Casual Impregnate Me Encounter couple should have done something like oh hell I don't know, talk to a lawyer or had a doctor involved when making a small decision like having a child.
 
2013-01-03 08:28:51 AM
Not to mention domestic violence is going to go up like a billion percent if every guy out there who has knocked some girl up knows he gets out of child support forever if he gets her to sign a short note saying he was just a 'donor'.
 
2013-01-03 08:29:49 AM
Marotta has already spent more than ten percent of his yearly salary on legal feed.

Considering lawyers usually feed at the trough, that phrase is about right.

/oh, and next time consult a lawyer, dumbass
 
2013-01-03 08:30:42 AM

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.
 
2013-01-03 08:35:25 AM

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.
 
2013-01-03 08:38:49 AM

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.


Hey, I want my hipster ninjas to be able to survey all the important buildings in Canada simultaneously. We're going to need at least... three of them.
 
2013-01-03 08:39:47 AM

doglover: 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.

Hey, I want my hipster ninjas to be able to survey all the important buildings in Canada simultaneously. We're going to need at least... three of them.


Ok you made me laugh a little
 
2013-01-03 08:41:35 AM

itsdan: This About That: Oh, I get it. I don't know why I didn't see this before. There is a contest among several states to see who can be the greatest embarrassment to the country.

To my knowledge there isn't a single state that honors this type of 'contract', the only way to genuinely do this is to use a donor bank. Some donor banks will act as an intermediary for a specific donation, others won't.


Right, but not all states would spend money going after the people and enforcing it. Neither of the mothers pushed this through - it was the State of Kansas who coerced the info when one of them applied for aid.


Marotta believes the state's arguement is at least partially politically motivated.

"I think if this was a lesbian couple in southern California I don't think it would even be an issue right now," he said.

Marotta says the child's mothers fully support him and have told the state they are the ones who should be held responsible. Still, Marotta says he's now up for a lengthy legal battle, one he says, could have many implications down the road.
 
2013-01-03 08:42:03 AM

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



Yeah, kind of what I was wondering. I'd at least like to think he got up in that.
 
2013-01-03 08:44:32 AM
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.
 
2013-01-03 08:45:48 AM

MacEnvy: itsdan: This About That: Oh, I get it. I don't know why I didn't see this before. There is a contest among several states to see who can be the greatest embarrassment to the country.

To my knowledge there isn't a single state that honors this type of 'contract', the only way to genuinely do this is to use a donor bank. Some donor banks will act as an intermediary for a specific donation, others won't.

Right, but not all states would spend money going after the people and enforcing it. Neither of the mothers pushed this through - it was the State of Kansas who coerced the info when one of them applied for aid.


Marotta believes the state's arguement is at least partially politically motivated.

"I think if this was a lesbian couple in southern California I don't think it would even be an issue right now," he said.

Marotta says the child's mothers fully support him and have told the state they are the ones who should be held responsible. Still, Marotta says he's now up for a lengthy legal battle, one he says, could have many implications down the road.


I'd venture a guess that most mothers would fully support the state paying them welfare instead of their lover paying child support.  I don't see how that is important here.......
 
2013-01-03 08:47:42 AM

thismomentinblackhistory: The Moral of the Story -


Some think copypasta is good eats.
 
2013-01-03 08:51:25 AM

doglover: thismomentinblackhistory: The Moral of the Story -

Some think copypasta is good eats.


I'd space it out but this is headed for the duplicate link graveyard...
 
2013-01-03 08:51:39 AM

NickelP: I'd venture a guess that most mothers would fully support the state paying them welfare instead of their lover paying child support.  I don't see how that is important here.......


Why would you guess that? "Welfare" is a very tiny amount and is time-limited, and you have to look for work or you lose it. Child support can be MUCH more money and is for 18 years.

In what way is state support preferable from a financial perspective?

Also, this guy was not either of their "lovers". Are you sure you know what's going on here?
 
2013-01-03 09:00:38 AM

MacEnvy: NickelP: I'd venture a guess that most mothers would fully support the state paying them welfare instead of their lover paying child support.  I don't see how that is important here.......

Why would you guess that? "Welfare" is a very tiny amount and is time-limited, and you have to look for work or you lose it. Child support can be MUCH more money and is for 18 years.

In what way is state support preferable from a financial perspective?

Also, this guy was not either of their "lovers". Are you sure you know what's going on here?


Because in a lot of cases the child support is basically household funds already anyways so their is no net gain?

I am not opposed to this guy not paying child support if everything he said is true, and it sounds like if any of these people had involved a doctor they would have been fine.  In other words, the system is setup pretty nicely as is but they chose not to use it.  Now they want anyone exempted who can produce a document saying they were just a donor.  Do you really not see any way that could be abused and a pregnant, scared girl could be talked into signing one of these when it wasn't true and it was against her self interest?

Not to mention this could have easily been a FF4MF type setup that went wrong.  having the law say 'If you make baby, you pay for baby, unless it is done so under the supervision of trained medical workers who can evaluate the situation and sign off on it' seems pretty reasonable.
 
2013-01-03 09:03:26 AM

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 ...


Kinda brings a tear...
 
2013-01-03 09:06:02 AM

NickelP: I am not opposed to this guy not paying child support if everything he said is true, and it sounds like if any of these people had involved a doctor they would have been fine. In other words, the system is setup pretty nicely as is but they chose not to use it.



I respect your viewpoint, but disagree.

You are Lawful Neutral.

fc04.deviantart.net

I am Chaotic Good

p.bfram.es
 
2013-01-03 09:06:24 AM

NickelP: Because in a lot of cases the child support is basically household funds already anyways so their is no net gain?

I am not opposed to this guy not paying child support if everything he said is true, and it sounds like if any of these people had involved a doctor they would have been fine.  In other words, the system is setup pretty nicely as is but they chose not to use it.  Now they want anyone exempted who can produce a document saying they were just a donor.  Do you really not see any way that could be abused and a pregnant, scared girl could be talked into signing one of these when it wasn't true and it was against her self interest?

Not to mention this could have easily been a FF4MF type setup that went wrong.  having the law say 'If you make baby, you pay for baby, unless it is done so under the supervision of trained medical workers who can evaluate the situation and sign off on it' seems pretty reasonable.


Marotta says the child's mothers fully support him and have told the state they are the ones who should be held responsible. Still, Marotta says he's now up for a lengthy legal battle, one he says, could have many implications down the road.

You're just making shiat up now. I have no idea what your agenda is here, but I bet it's something stupid.
 
2013-01-03 09:16:22 AM

MacEnvy: NickelP: Because in a lot of cases the child support is basically household funds already anyways so their is no net gain?

I am not opposed to this guy not paying child support if everything he said is true, and it sounds like if any of these people had involved a doctor they would have been fine.  In other words, the system is setup pretty nicely as is but they chose not to use it.  Now they want anyone exempted who can produce a document saying they were just a donor.  Do you really not see any way that could be abused and a pregnant, scared girl could be talked into signing one of these when it wasn't true and it was against her self interest?

Not to mention this could have easily been a FF4MF type setup that went wrong.  having the law say 'If you make baby, you pay for baby, unless it is done so under the supervision of trained medical workers who can evaluate the situation and sign off on it' seems pretty reasonable.

Marotta says the child's mothers fully support him and have told the state they are the ones who should be held responsible. Still, Marotta says he's now up for a lengthy legal battle, one he says, could have many implications down the road.

You're just making shiat up now. I have no idea what your agenda is here, but I bet it's something stupid.


Since this sounds like it only came up because she is on wellfare I am guessing she isn't being responsible or is capable of doing so.....
 
2013-01-03 09:16:25 AM

MacEnvy: NickelP: Because in a lot of cases the child support is basically household funds already anyways so their is no net gain?

I am not opposed to this guy not paying child support if everything he said is true, and it sounds like if any of these people had involved a doctor they would have been fine.  In other words, the system is setup pretty nicely as is but they chose not to use it.  Now they want anyone exempted who can produce a document saying they were just a donor.  Do you really not see any way that could be abused and a pregnant, scared girl could be talked into signing one of these when it wasn't true and it was against her self interest?

Not to mention this could have easily been a FF4MF type setup that went wrong.  having the law say 'If you make baby, you pay for baby, unless it is done so under the supervision of trained medical workers who can evaluate the situation and sign off on it' seems pretty reasonable.

Marotta says the child's mothers fully support him and have told the state they are the ones who should be held responsible. Still, Marotta says he's now up for a lengthy legal battle, one he says, could have many implications down the road.

You're just making shiat up now. I have no idea what your agenda is here, but I bet it's something stupid.


Maybe we should hear from the child's mothers about whether or not they support him?
 
2013-01-03 09:22:46 AM

Theaetetus: MacEnvy: NickelP: Because in a lot of cases the child support is basically household funds already anyways so their is no net gain?

I am not opposed to this guy not paying child support if everything he said is true, and it sounds like if any of these people had involved a doctor they would have been fine.  In other words, the system is setup pretty nicely as is but they chose not to use it.  Now they want anyone exempted who can produce a document saying they were just a donor.  Do you really not see any way that could be abused and a pregnant, scared girl could be talked into signing one of these when it wasn't true and it was against her self interest?

Not to mention this could have easily been a FF4MF type setup that went wrong.  having the law say 'If you make baby, you pay for baby, unless it is done so under the supervision of trained medical workers who can evaluate the situation and sign off on it' seems pretty reasonable.

Marotta says the child's mothers fully support him and have told the state they are the ones who should be held responsible. Still, Marotta says he's now up for a lengthy legal battle, one he says, could have many implications down the road.

You're just making shiat up now. I have no idea what your agenda is here, but I bet it's something stupid.

Maybe we should hear from the child's mothers about whether or not they support him?


This is the info we have, unless you can find more.  NickelP preferred to make up his own narrative in his head that better fits his reality, so you could always do that too I suppose.
 
2013-01-03 09:23:57 AM

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.
 
2013-01-03 09:24:34 AM

MacEnvy: Theaetetus: MacEnvy: NickelP: Because in a lot of cases the child support is basically household funds already anyways so their is no net gain?

I am not opposed to this guy not paying child support if everything he said is true, and it sounds like if any of these people had involved a doctor they would have been fine.  In other words, the system is setup pretty nicely as is but they chose not to use it.  Now they want anyone exempted who can produce a document saying they were just a donor.  Do you really not see any way that could be abused and a pregnant, scared girl could be talked into signing one of these when it wasn't true and it was against her self interest?

Not to mention this could have easily been a FF4MF type setup that went wrong.  having the law say 'If you make baby, you pay for baby, unless it is done so under the supervision of trained medical workers who can evaluate the situation and sign off on it' seems pretty reasonable.

Marotta says the child's mothers fully support him and have told the state they are the ones who should be held responsible. Still, Marotta says he's now up for a lengthy legal battle, one he says, could have many implications down the road.

You're just making shiat up now. I have no idea what your agenda is here, but I bet it's something stupid.

Maybe we should hear from the child's mothers about whether or not they support him?

This is the info we have, unless you can find more.  NickelP preferred to make up his own narrative in his head that better fits his reality, so you could always do that too I suppose.


That or I can think outside of one specific situation when discussing how public policy and laws should work.
 
2013-01-03 09:25:11 AM

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
 
2013-01-03 09:28:41 AM

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.
 
2013-01-03 09:31:34 AM

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.


What if you want to donate to a single girl?
 
2013-01-03 09:34:45 AM

NickelP: 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.

What if you want to donate to a single girl?


Then you're on the hook for support. It's the right of the child to get support from both parents, and you can't unilaterally waive the child's rights for them. Find someone to take over your rights and obligations, or don't do it.
 
2013-01-03 09:36:25 AM

Theaetetus: 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.


They fill out birth certificates with the names of adopted parents on them already.  Are LGBT families in more need of preventing these issues than those kids?

/Adopted kids have two birth certificates, one with bio parent and one with adopted parents.  Guess which one takes legal precedence?
 
2013-01-03 09:41:31 AM

Exception Collection: Theaetetus: 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.

They fill out birth certificates with the names of adopted parents on them already.  Are LGBT families in more need of preventing these issues than those kids?

/Adopted kids have two birth certificates, one with bio parent and one with adopted parents.  Guess which one takes legal precedence?


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.
 
2013-01-03 09:43:15 AM
All I can picture now is some joe dirt situation where 2 kids are about to get it on, pull out their birth certificates,  look at the sperm donor line, get really pissed off then say ah screw it followed by a lot of 'fark your sister, fark your sister' type sex.
 
2013-01-03 09:54:17 AM

NickelP: All I can picture now is some joe dirt situation where 2 kids are about to get it on, pull out their birth certificates,  look at the sperm donor line, get really pissed off then say ah screw it followed by a lot of 'fark your sister, fark your sister' type sex.


Between consenting adults

Sexual activity between adult close relatives may arise from genetic sexual attraction.[74] This form of incest has not been widely reported in the past, but recent evidence has indicated that this behavior does take place, possibly more often than many people realize.[74] Internet chatrooms and topical websites exist that provide support for incestuous couples.[74]

Proponents of incest between consenting adults draw clear boundaries between the behavior of consenting adults and rape, child molestation, and abusive incest.[74] According to one incest participant who was interviewed for an article in The Guardian:

"You can't help who you fall in love with, it just happens. I fell in love with my sister and I'm not ashamed ... I only feel sorry for my mom and dad, I wish they could be happy for us. We love each other. It's nothing like some old man who tries to fark his three-year-old, that's evil and disgusting ... Of course we're consenting, that's the most important thing. We're not farking perverts. What we have is the most beautiful thing in the world."[74]

In Slate Magazine, William Saletan drew a legal connection between gay sex and incest between consenting adults.[75] As he described in his article, in 2003, U.S. Senator Rick Santorum commented on a pending U.S. Supreme Court case involving sodomy laws (primarily as a matter of Constitutional rights to Privacy and Equal Protection under the Law). He stated: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery."[75] However, David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign professed outrage that Santorum placed being gay on the same moral and legal level as someone engaging in incest. Saletan argued that, legally and morally, there is essentially no difference between the two, and went on to support incest between consenting adults being covered by a legal right to privacy.[75] UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has made similar arguments.[76] In a more recent article, Saletan said that incest is wrong because it introduces the possibility of irreparably damaging family units by introducing "a notoriously incendiary dynamic-sexual tension-into the mix".[77]
 
2013-01-03 09:59:18 AM

Theaetetus: Then you're on the hook for support.


And if you sign a contract abrogating all responsibility that should be upheld.  If she decides later that she wants free money, the state has no right to override that contract.
 
2013-01-03 10:11:58 AM

GAT_00: Theaetetus: Then you're on the hook for support.

And if you sign a contract abrogating all responsibility that should be upheld.  If she decides later that she wants free money, the state has no right to override that contract.


I signed a contract with my buddy that waives  yourrights. You're okay with that, right? The state shouldn't override it, right?
 
2013-01-03 10:14:44 AM

Theaetetus: GAT_00: Theaetetus: Then you're on the hook for support.

And if you sign a contract abrogating all responsibility that should be upheld.  If she decides later that she wants free money, the state has no right to override that contract.

I signed a contract with my buddy that waives  yourrights. You're okay with that, right? The state shouldn't override it, right?


I am ok with waiving Gat_00's rights....  Lets do this thing, what will you give me?
 
2013-01-03 10:26:54 AM

Theaetetus: GAT_00: Theaetetus: Then you're on the hook for support.

And if you sign a contract abrogating all responsibility that should be upheld.  If she decides later that she wants free money, the state has no right to override that contract.

I signed a contract with my buddy that waives  yourrights. You're okay with that, right? The state shouldn't override it, right?


There is no reason, none, a sperm donor should be forced to give child support.  Doubly so if the mother signed a contract saying she would not ask for child support.  This is absurd.  Would you also say that a man has a right to child support from the former owner of a donor egg?
 
2013-01-03 10:29:40 AM

GAT_00: Theaetetus: GAT_00: Theaetetus: Then you're on the hook for support.

And if you sign a contract abrogating all responsibility that should be upheld.  If she decides later that she wants free money, the state has no right to override that contract.

I signed a contract with my buddy that waives  yourrights. You're okay with that, right? The state shouldn't override it, right?

There is no reason, none, a sperm donor should be forced to give child support.  Doubly so if the mother signed a contract saying she would not ask for child support.  This is absurd.  Would you also say that a man has a right to child support from the former owner of a donor egg?


NickelP: I am ok with waiving Gat_00's rights....  Lets do this thing, what will you give me?


Excellent. Let's waive Gat's right to post on Fark. No more free speech for him. And he apparently thinks that a court shouldn't override that.
 
2013-01-03 10:31:22 AM

Theaetetus: GAT_00: Theaetetus: GAT_00: Theaetetus: Then you're on the hook for support.

And if you sign a contract abrogating all responsibility that should be upheld.  If she decides later that she wants free money, the state has no right to override that contract.

I signed a contract with my buddy that waives  yourrights. You're okay with that, right? The state shouldn't override it, right?

There is no reason, none, a sperm donor should be forced to give child support.  Doubly so if the mother signed a contract saying she would not ask for child support.  This is absurd.  Would you also say that a man has a right to child support from the former owner of a donor egg?

NickelP: I am ok with waiving Gat_00's rights....  Lets do this thing, what will you give me?

Excellent. Let's waive Gat's right to post on Fark. No more free speech for him. And he apparently thinks that a court shouldn't override that.


Yay everyone wins
 
2013-01-03 10:32:30 AM

Theaetetus: Excellent. Let's waive Gat's right to post on Fark. No more free speech for him. And he apparently thinks that a court shouldn't override that.


Is there a reason you're just being a annoying little biatch instead of discussing this?  I was going to have a discussion.  Apparently, saying anything more than 'No, fark you, you're a moron' is too challenging for you.  You just want to be a smug, superior dick, and so you can go fark yourself.
 
2013-01-03 10:35:32 AM
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
 
2013-01-03 10:36:37 AM

GAT_00: Theaetetus: Excellent. Let's waive Gat's right to post on Fark. No more free speech for him. And he apparently thinks that a court shouldn't override that.

Is there a reason you're just being a annoying little biatch instead of discussing this?  I was going to have a discussion.  Apparently, saying anything more than 'No, fark you, you're a moron' is too challenging for you.  You just want to be a smug, superior dick, and so you can go fark yourself.


Everything you said has already been addressed, if you want to discuss it then add something new instead of summarizing what others have said already.
 
2013-01-03 10:37:22 AM

NickelP: Everything you said has already been addressed, if you want to discuss it then add something new instead of summarizing what others have said already file a request with your guardian ad litem and we'll consider it.


:D
 
2013-01-03 10:37:33 AM

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


I'm a witness.
 
2013-01-03 10:38:15 AM

NickelP: Everything you said has already been addressed, if you want to discuss it then add something new instead of summarizing what others have said already.


Oh I forgot, I'm not allowed to have my own opinions and discuss them.  Thanks for telling me what I can think and what I can say.
 
2013-01-03 10:40:52 AM

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
 
2013-01-03 10:44:50 AM

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.
 
2013-01-03 10:57:02 AM

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.
 
2013-01-03 11:02:40 AM

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.
 
2013-01-03 11:07:16 AM

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.
 
2013-01-03 11:11:52 AM

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.
 
2013-01-03 11:13:24 AM

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.
 
2013-01-03 11:24:09 AM

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.
 
2013-01-03 11:27:26 AM

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.
 
2013-01-03 11:28:32 AM

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.


Why would you assume a lawyer was involved?  If anything I would assume one wasn't or they wouldn't be in this mess right now.  Not to mention not wanting docs involved and finding a donor on craigslist just screams too poor and not enough good judgement to get a lawyer.  They could be calling a a quick note on the back of a napkin that says 'I'll give you a quicky but I don't want to pay child support' a legal document.
 
2013-01-03 11:49:45 AM

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.
 
2013-01-03 12:04:41 PM
I kind of see the state's point on this one. The guy's heart might have been in the right place, but he was an idiot for not doing it the correct way, and ensuring the people he helped out had the financial means in place to care for a kid.

If the state doesn't crack down on this, you could have people trying to work the loophole in the opposite direction to try and avoid child support where it is due.
 
2013-01-03 12:05:45 PM
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.
 
2013-01-03 12:06:26 PM

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 .
 
2013-01-03 12:07:21 PM
Marotta said he was shocked, "At which point I'm going, wow, no good deed seed goes unpunished."

FTFH
 
2013-01-03 12:07:44 PM

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?
 
2013-01-03 12:09:03 PM

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...
 
2013-01-03 12:11:53 PM
btw the original link has a ton more info.   http://cjonline.com/news/2012-12-28/court-case-query-topeka-man-sperm - donor-or-father

I just noticed it.
 
2013-01-03 12:16:17 PM

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.
 
2013-01-03 12:22:43 PM

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.
 
2013-01-03 12:22:55 PM
In sealed adoptions and anonymous legal donations, the bio parents are nowhere on the birth certificate.
 
2013-01-03 12:54:37 PM
"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.
 
2013-01-03 01:01:19 PM

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.
 
Displayed 72 of 72 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report