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.

(CNN)   Kansas judge: "You gave sperm to a lesbian couple? You can't prove you didn't fark them, so you're the father, now pay up"   (cnn.com) divider line 405
    More: Followup, A Kansas, Courts of Kansas, child support, Marotta, lesbian couples, blood donors  
•       •       •

13180 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2014 at 9:13 PM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-23 08:01:13 PM
Honestly, I don't have that much sympathy. He didn't follow the law. This isn't hard. If you want to do something like this, check what the law is; given the gravity of the action, its pretty reasonable to expect him to do a google search or ask a lawyer.

THAT BEING SAID - if, as TFA says, this is politically motivated re: same sex couples, then the state can go fark itself.
 
2014-01-23 08:10:08 PM
I have trouble seeing what difference it makes how the sperm got into her, and whether he enjoyed or not. There are documents signed by both of them saying he is not the father.

For that matter his name should have been left out of it entirely by the lesbians. She should have said it was a random trucker passing through. They can't gene test everybody.
 
2014-01-23 08:13:49 PM
Even having a physician and going to a sperm donor clinic doesn't help in some cases.

I recall reading a couple of articles a few years back where some women, who used donor sperm from approved clinics, got pregnant, lost their partner or hubby and then fell on hard financial times after the kids were born. So they got lawyers and sued to know the identity of the sperm donor and once they found out, took the guys to court for child support.

The judges, ignoring all of the legalities granted to the clinics to protect the donors, promptly agreed and required the guys to pay child support. One wasn't taken to court until 'his' child was in his teens. Then he was required to pay back child support.

Interesting, how laws can be ignored depending on the State and the Judge involved. Fertility clinics have since expressed a growing concern that they may not get as many qualified donors as before.
 
2014-01-23 08:19:17 PM

EvilEgg: I have trouble seeing what difference it makes how the sperm got into her, and whether he enjoyed or not. There are documents signed by both of them saying he is not the father.


Well, he is the father. Everyone agrees on that, biologically.  The question is, what procedures and policies do we, as a society, need to make sure are in place in order to ensure that people can't just abandon their obligations as a parent.

Imagine a couple has a kid, and then when the woman is pregnant the couple breaks up. They agree they don't want to be together, and jointly decide that the man should leave and give up all parental rights. Then the woman hits on hard times and the government needs to provide support. Why shouldn't the father have to pick up the slack? Because he and the mom agreed not to? Why should the kid be denied lack of resources because of that agreement? Why should society have to pick up the slack because of that agreement?

I agree that there are situations where we want to enable people to sever themselves of these rights, and sperm donations seem like an area where that applies. But there's a legitimate state interest in making sure that you have procedures in place to prevent fraud and abuse, and unfair hardship to the kid and society.
 
2014-01-23 08:19:37 PM
Spare the rod, get stuck with child support?

Also how would a physician being involved change anything with a paternity? It wouldn't, QED dumb law.

They're just doing this to prove "Jeebus hates homersekshuals and people who don't hate 'em too." Freakin Kansas.
 
2014-01-23 08:20:12 PM

Rik01: The judges, ignoring all of the legalities granted to the clinics to protect the donors, promptly agreed and required the guys to pay child support. One wasn't taken to court until 'his' child was in his teens. Then he was required to pay back child support.


That's a very different issue than this one, though. The people in TFA didn't follow the law. They want the protection of procedures they didn't follow. Very different scenario.
 
2014-01-23 08:20:52 PM

doglover: Also how would a physician being involved change anything with a paternity? It wouldn't, QED dumb law.


It's a qualified third party verifying to the reality of the situation - ie no fraud. It's a perfectly rational law, as far as I can see.
 
2014-01-23 08:26:56 PM

DamnYankees: Then the woman hits on hard times and the government needs to provide support. Why shouldn't the father have to pick up the slack? Because he and the mom agreed not to? Why should the kid be denied lack of resources because of that agreement? Why should society have to pick up the slack because of that agreement?


The child should not be denied lack of resources, and the government should pitch in to help the mother support her family, like it does with all families that hit on hard times. Why does the father (or mother, for that matter) remain attached to the child when another responsible adult accepts full responsibility?

Also, which expends more resources: finding, fining, trying in court, and garnishing wages of unwilling parents, or just cutting a welfare check?
 
2014-01-23 08:32:05 PM

nmrsnr: Why does the father (or mother, for that matter) remain attached to the child when another responsible adult accepts full responsibility?


Because that's not a responsibility you can give up. There's more parties involved. When it comes to raising a kid, the parties are the parents, the kid, and the support structure. Why should one parent just be able to say "no, not helping"?

For a really terrible analogy, imagine you live in a house with 2 roommates who share a room. The two roommates decide between themselves that only one of them will have the responsibility of cleaning the room. So that goes on for a while, but eventually the roommate who agreed to clean moves out. But the remaining roommate says "i'm not cleaning, we agreed that's not my job!" Eventually the room gets so disgusting you need to call in an exterminator to get rid of a roach infestation. You have to pay the exterminator. You don't think you should be able to force the other roommate to pay the bill, or at least split it with you? You think that agreement between your two roommates, an agreement you never consented to, should give YOU extra liabilities?

That analogy isn't actually that bad, now that I think about it.
 
2014-01-23 08:51:08 PM

DamnYankees: nmrsnr: Why does the father (or mother, for that matter) remain attached to the child when another responsible adult accepts full responsibility?

Because that's not a responsibility you can give up. There's more parties involved. When it comes to raising a kid, the parties are the parents, the kid, and the support structure. Why should one parent just be able to say "no, not helping"?

For a really terrible analogy, imagine you live in a house with 2 roommates who share a room. The two roommates decide between themselves that only one of them will have the responsibility of cleaning the room. So that goes on for a while, but eventually the roommate who agreed to clean moves out. But the remaining roommate says "i'm not cleaning, we agreed that's not my job!" Eventually the room gets so disgusting you need to call in an exterminator to get rid of a roach infestation. You have to pay the exterminator. You don't think you should be able to force the other roommate to pay the bill, or at least split it with you? You think that agreement between your two roommates, an agreement you never consented to, should give YOU extra liabilities?

That analogy isn't actually that bad, now that I think about it.


when the one room mate moves out the other needs to mitigate their damages or assume them. ie put that shiat up for adoption or abortion time. if the kids born and being jointly raised thats different, but cumming in a cup shouldn't obligate you to 18 years of child support payments. hell a one night stand shouldn't either. I'm all for women's rights in regards to fertility, but with choices comes responsibility. if daddy isn't interested in being around, maybe that should be part of what you consider in your abortion/adoption/mommy decision. as noted this doesn't really apply when he gives an impression of support.
 
2014-01-23 08:52:10 PM

DamnYankees: Because that's not a responsibility you can give up.


Sure it is, it's called adoption, and people do it all the time. Plus you even admitted proper surrogacy would have shileded the guy.

Why should one parent just be able to say "no, not helping"?

Unilaterally? They shouldn't. But if another responsible adult is willing to accept the responsibility, I don't see why having a genetic tie is an important factor.

DamnYankees: That analogy isn't actually that bad, now that I think about it.


It's pretty bad. You, in this case, are the child I assume. So the roommate who stays behind is the parent who doesn't want any obligation, while the roommate who leaves is the parent who asked for the responsibility. Which seems precisely backwards. The one who leaves is the one being derelict in their duty and abandoning the agreement. Also, the responsibility in this case to be analogous would be to you, the roommate, and not to a third, communal object, the apartment. It'd be more like the first roommate promises you, personally, that he will always keep the apartment clean for you, and that he fully agreed that the second roommate has no responsibility. So now your taking the first roommate leaving out on the second roommate, who made you no promises. Also, you in this case are an adult with a totally separate set of abilities and avenues of recourse than a child.
 
2014-01-23 08:57:36 PM

NickelP: if the kids born and being jointly raised thats different, but cumming in a cup shouldn't obligate you to 18 years of child support payments.


I agree - but how do we know he came in a cup? That's the point of the law! You need a doctor to verify all this shiat. Otherwise its too easy to commit fraud.

There's a rational procedure in place to permit people to do what you want them to be able to do, and this dude didn't follow the procedure. Why should I rend my clothes over this?
 
2014-01-23 08:59:12 PM
"Intrigued" by the ad, he says, he delivered three cupfuls of his sperm -- gratis -- to the women.

feplush.typepad.com

You've got to respect the guy.
 
2014-01-23 08:59:14 PM

nmrsnr: Sure it is, it's called adoption, and people do it all the time. Plus you even admitted proper surrogacy would have shileded the guy.


Yes, and adoption has a process. You can't just drop a kid in the street and say "I hereby give this kid up for adoption" and end all liability for him.

Follow the process and I'm fine with it. If you don't, you're an idiot and my sympathy goes way down.

nmrsnr: It's pretty bad. You, in this case, are the child I assume.


Jesus, how can you misread the analogy that badly. "You" are the government. The child is the house/room.
 
2014-01-23 09:06:23 PM

DamnYankees: NickelP: if the kids born and being jointly raised thats different, but cumming in a cup shouldn't obligate you to 18 years of child support payments.

I agree - but how do we know he came in a cup? That's the point of the law! You need a doctor to verify all this shiat. Otherwise its too easy to commit fraud.

There's a rational procedure in place to permit people to do what you want them to be able to do, and this dude didn't follow the procedure. Why should I rend my clothes over this?


If I'm a lesbian that wants a baby why do I need to pay a doctor for an expensive implantation?  We've been making babies for a long time and its not that hard.
 
2014-01-23 09:08:03 PM

DamnYankees: Yes, and adoption has a process. You can't just drop a kid in the street and say "I hereby give this kid up for adoption" and end all liability for him.


So you're arguing bureaucracy. This guy didn't check the right boxes, not that parental responsibility isn't something you can give up. And I agree you can't unilaterally abdicate responsibility, but that's not what this is about.

Jesus, how can you misread the analogy that badly. "You" are the government. The child is the house/room.

Because I didn't consider a child an object? But now that I get it... it doesn't help much. The one who claimed responsibility in your analogy is still the one walking away. The more accurate analogy is that the two roommates shared responsibility for cleaning the apartment, but then one roommate wanted to move out. Before moving out, he got the first roommate to agree that they'd take full responsibility for cleaning the apartment, which the first roommate happily does for years. The first roommate then suffers an injury incapacitating them, so they can't clean, so you sue the roommate who moved away to help pay for a cleaning service.
 
2014-01-23 09:11:09 PM

NickelP: If I'm a lesbian that wants a baby why do I need to pay a doctor for an expensive implantation?


1) The law doesn't say the doctor needs to do an implantation, according to TFA. Just that you need a doctor involved in the process. I will agree that within that language there's plenty of room for what might be reasonable or unreasonable. But for all I know all this law means is that you need to consult a doctor and get sign-off. Do you have evidence otherwise?

2) You don't - you only need this if you want the father to be able to sever his rights completely. I guess my question to you is do you think there's any room for any required procedures her, or do you think the word of the parents is all that should be required?
 
2014-01-23 09:12:20 PM
Kansas could use a good meteor strike

/footfall
 
2014-01-23 09:13:26 PM

nmrsnr: So you're arguing bureaucracy. This guy didn't check the right boxes, not that parental responsibility isn't something you can give up. And I agree you can't unilaterally abdicate responsibility, but that's not what this is about.


I'm arguing for some procedures, yes. You can call that "bureaucracy" if you like.

nmrsnr: Before moving out, he got the first roommate to agree that they'd take full responsibility for cleaning the apartment, which the first roommate happily does for years. The first roommate then suffers an injury incapacitating them, so they can't clean, so you sue the roommate who moved away to help pay for a cleaning service.


That's a fair alternative analogy. I guess the question really comes down to what people consider fair.
 
2014-01-23 09:18:52 PM
Not a bad headline - only one calculated deception, and one outright lie.
 
2014-01-23 09:20:34 PM
Just make it illegal for a man to give sperm to anyone not his legal spouse. Problem solved.

Okay, so I'm a little bored right now.
 
2014-01-23 09:20:34 PM
Whatcha gonna do with all that spunk
all that spunk
in yo trunk
 
2014-01-23 09:20:58 PM

DamnYankees: nmrsnr: Why does the father (or mother, for that matter) remain attached to the child when another responsible adult accepts full responsibility?

Because that's not a responsibility you can give up. There's more parties involved. When it comes to raising a kid, the parties are the parents, the kid, and the support structure. Why should one parent just be able to say "no, not helping"?

For a really terrible analogy, imagine you live in a house with 2 roommates who share a room. The two roommates decide between themselves that only one of them will have the responsibility of cleaning the room. So that goes on for a while, but eventually the roommate who agreed to clean moves out. But the remaining roommate says "i'm not cleaning, we agreed that's not my job!" Eventually the room gets so disgusting you need to call in an exterminator to get rid of a roach infestation. You have to pay the exterminator. You don't think you should be able to force the other roommate to pay the bill, or at least split it with you? You think that agreement between your two roommates, an agreement you never consented to, should give YOU extra liabilities?

That analogy isn't actually that bad, now that I think about it.


Almost... replace cleaning with paying the other half of the rent
 
m00
2014-01-23 09:21:19 PM
So you can get a guy to give you sperm and use a turkey baster and sign an agreement as a private transaction between two parties, or you can go to a doctor and pay $3000 and get the state involved and go through a bunch of tests and regulations.

If you do the first option, the conservative position is that's the wrong answer because the government needed to be involved and therefor the transaction is invalid.  But I thought conservatives were against involvement of government...?
 
2014-01-23 09:21:25 PM

nmrsnr: The more accurate analogy is that the two roommates shared responsibility for cleaning the apartment, but then one roommate wanted to move out. Before moving out, he got the first roommate to agree that they'd take full responsibility for cleaning the apartment, which the first roommate happily does for years. The first roommate then suffers an injury incapacitating them, so they can't clean, so you sue the roommate who moved away to help pay for a cleaning service.


Actually, the more I think about it, the less sense this analogy makes. To have an analogy work, you need 4 parties:

Object: this is the thing that, once it exists, has ongoing maintenance costs
Party 1: person who agrees to create the object
Party 2: person who agrees to create the object
Guarantor: person who will need to care for the objection in the event both Party 1 and Party 2 fail to do so

My analogy had all these people. Your analogy doesn't, since there's no Guarantor. Who's the guarantor? Who's the "you" here?

Think about it as a landlord relationship. Imagine you own a house and you lease it to two people - both names on the lease. Then one tenant leaves; she agrees with the other tenant to pay the rent. But they never got your consent! Then say the second tenant dies. Now you're the landlord, and no one is paying rent. Why shouldn't you be able to go after the guy who left? He signed a contract with you to pay rent, and you never agreed to change it. What he agreed with the other tenant is irrelevant to you - you deserve the rent.

FYI this is basic contract law - its called "assignment". And the basic law is that if you assign your rights or obligations to someone else (ie one roommate lets the other one off the hook) without the consent of the other party to the contract, in the event of a breach, the other party can go after either the assignee or assignor. Why should that law not analogize to this situation?
 
2014-01-23 09:21:38 PM
Who the fark would even use random sperm gained by trolling craigslist. Holy farking shiat; disease much? Dumbasses all around and as usual men lose.
 
2014-01-23 09:21:50 PM
Child protective services, Foster parents and Child Support is just farked up in this country.
 
2014-01-23 09:22:00 PM
"The cost to the state to bring this case far outweighs any benefit the state would get," said Swinnen, adding his client has no other children.

The benefit the state would get is not having to foot the bill for indigent mothers and their children.

It's sort of the main reason why child support was invented in the first place.
 
2014-01-23 09:22:01 PM

jso2897: Not a bad headline - only one calculated deception, and one outright lie.


What can I say? I hate Kansas.
 
2014-01-23 09:22:13 PM

i.r.id10t: Almost... replace cleaning with paying the other half of the rent


Ha, see my post right after yours. I wrote the new analogy without seeing this.
 
2014-01-23 09:22:55 PM

DamnYankees: Why should one parent just be able to say "no, not helping"?


Because only one parent has the ability to decide whether of not the child will be born. If we as a society say the man has no say in abortion, then we should also be saying he has no obligation to pay for her decision.

/I support abortion
 
2014-01-23 09:23:55 PM
True story.  A few decades ago my wife and I were good friends with a lesbian couple and they asked me if I would donate sperm for artificial insemination.  Didn't take more than a few seconds to answer that one.  Too much chance of being involved in some sort of legal entanglement down the road if things ever went bad for them.  They ended up using a sperm bank.  They have two kids now, neither of which I will ever be responsible for.
 
2014-01-23 09:24:30 PM

EvilEgg: I have trouble seeing what difference it makes how the sperm got into her, and whether he enjoyed or not. There are documents signed by both of them saying he is not the father.

For that matter his name should have been left out of it entirely by the lesbians. She should have said it was a random trucker passing through. They can't gene test everybody.


Was there a guardian ad litem appointed for the child to be a party to the agreement? There's three parties involved here, the birth mother, the sperm provider, and the child.

It is called child support for a reason.
 
2014-01-23 09:24:55 PM

Fano: Whatcha gonna do with all that spunk
all that spunk
in yo trunk


My spunk? My spunk? My baby batter lumps?
 
2014-01-23 09:25:01 PM
Vasectomy, people. It's the only way.
 
2014-01-23 09:25:31 PM

Pincy: True story.  A few decades ago my wife and I were good friends with a lesbian couple and they asked me if I would donate sperm for artificial insemination.  Didn't take more than a few seconds to answer that one.  Too much chance of being involved in some sort of legal entanglement down the road if things ever went bad for them.  They ended up using a sperm bank.  They have two kids now, neither of which I will ever be responsible for.



 All of the potential responsibility and none of the fun?  You are smart.
 
2014-01-23 09:25:36 PM
Shawnee County? Farking Topeka! You just about can't go there anymore because of the Westboro nuts. Now you can't just knock up lesbians at your leisure.

/ although, it's not surprising for a town that has a BYOB strip club.
 
2014-01-23 09:27:57 PM

DamnYankees: NickelP: If I'm a lesbian that wants a baby why do I need to pay a doctor for an expensive implantation?

1) The law doesn't say the doctor needs to do an implantation, according to TFA. Just that you need a doctor involved in the process. I will agree that within that language there's plenty of room for what might be reasonable or unreasonable. But for all I know all this law means is that you need to consult a doctor and get sign-off. Do you have evidence otherwise?

2) You don't - you only need this if you want the father to be able to sever his rights completely. I guess my question to you is do you think there's any room for any required procedures her, or do you think the word of the parents is all that should be required?


1.  I don't have any conflicting evidence.  I am assuming a doctor isn't getting involed in that stuff without some hefty fees thoughs.  Maybe I am wrong, but I doubt it.

2.  I'd say maybe marriage automatically obligates you.  Otherwise the mom must make an attempt to notify the dad upon pregnancy, at which point he can have a couple of weeks to declare he'd like to be a part of the childs life or have the oppportunity to clearly declare he has no intent to do so.  At that point the mother can make an informed decision on how she'd like to proceed.
 
2014-01-23 09:29:40 PM
Sold(free in this case) as is , where is.

Government: We aint paying giving you public services if you don't identify the father.
Lesbians: Its all legit and this contract says all legal strings of possession are cut.
Government: Whargarbelll, do as we say or be cast to the fires of hell you icky people!!!!
Lesbians: Why the f*ck do we live in this shiathole State again?
 
2014-01-23 09:29:44 PM
FTFA: "This story begins on Craigslist in March 2009. "

Aaand we're done here.
 
2014-01-23 09:30:17 PM
he delivered three cupfuls of his sperm -- gratis -- to the women.

Three CUPFULLS?!

Is this guy related to Peter North or something?!
 
2014-01-23 09:30:20 PM

Serious Black: jso2897: Not a bad headline - only one calculated deception, and one outright lie.

What can I say? I hate Kansas.


Well, at least it has an ethos.
 
2014-01-23 09:30:28 PM
He knowingly chose to bring a kid in this world.  He also chose to do this outside the law, substituting his own waiver of parental responsibility instead of using legally established procedures.  He admits is did it all because he was 'intrigued'.  I'm not even going to get into the cupfuls of semen.

He went out of his way to get himself into this mess, he should pay for it.
 
2014-01-23 09:30:54 PM
Open-minded gentleman helps lesbians and was rewarded by having his bank account cleaned out lickety-split. <HA-HA-Kid.jpg>
 
2014-01-23 09:30:54 PM
This may be the grossest thing I read on the innertubes today... and I read up on Ambergris after an article earlier today.

I mean really... who reads a Craiglist ad for 2 women wanting semen and you just show up with 3 cups of the stuff and hand it over.  Sign a little piece of paper and feel like you've done some kind of civic duty for the day?  There is something obviously wrong with this dude.
 
2014-01-23 09:32:55 PM

NickelP: If I'm a lesbian that wants a baby why do I need to pay a doctor for an expensive implantation? We've been making babies for a long time and its not that hard.


You don't need to pay a doctor.  You can have a man do it the old fashioned way if you like.  The problem we're discussing here isn't your ability to get pregnant, it's the legal ramifications for the man that gets you pregnant (regardless of the method used to do that).
 
2014-01-23 09:33:29 PM
I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake. But I... I do deny them my essence.

/from orbit
//it's the only way to be safe
 
2014-01-23 09:33:35 PM

karmaceutical: This may be the grossest thing I read on the innertubes today... and I read up on Ambergris after an article earlier today.

I mean really... who reads a Craiglist ad for 2 women wanting semen and you just show up with 3 cups of the stuff and hand it over.  Sign a little piece of paper and feel like you've done some kind of civic duty for the day?  There is something obviously wrong with this dude.



Not necessarily. We're all driven by a very strong biological need to procreate. If the male brain applies a bit of logic to its natural desires, the result might be that the strong desire to procreate would cause one to take this action...
 
2014-01-23 09:34:12 PM
the state wants others to share/eat the financial burden.

i am totes shocked.
 
2014-01-23 09:34:52 PM

CokeBear: Not necessarily. We're all driven by a very strong biological need to procreate.


I think you should reword that.  I have not drive to procreate at all.  I got a vasectomy in my early 30s before I had any children and couldn't be happier.
 
Displayed 50 of 405 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report