Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I live in Kansas and what I have heard on local talk shows is that the lesbian couple split up and the one who actually was inseminated (they did it with a turkey baster) kept the baby. The donor's name was not on the birth certificate. She needed public assistance so went to sign up. When she filled out papers, they asked for the name of the father of the baby and she put "sperm donor." I'm not sure exactly how they got his name, whether she ended up giving it to them or what. I think they said they had to have the father's name for her to get public assistance but that makes no sense because I'm sure there are plenty of people who really don't know who the father is and I don't see how you could deny public assistance because they don't know who the father is.
But - wouldn't it make sense that the lesbian partner should be the one paying child support, since they agreed to have a child together? That would be one argument for gay marriage, so that there is a legally binding contract between the two and child support and custody would have to be worked out the way it is with heterosexual couples instead of just leaving if it didn't work out.
Also - if it were a female who donated an egg, do you think that state would go after her for child support? I don't think so, so I think it's really unfair for a man to have to pay child support when all he was doing was helping out friends.
Kansas has some funky rules (not that other states don't, as well). I used to live in Kansas and have two friends who have gone through child custody battles, etc (one a paternity case) . . .
Anyway, from what I can ascertain from friends in the area and from news reports, if the biological mother of the child had not said "sperm donor" -- none of this would have happened. In addition, I was told that the state puts tremendous pressure on the mother of the child to come up with names of potential fathers - who then are summoned to court to prove (or I guess - disprove?) paternity.
Kansas also has some unreal rules in re: to spousal support. If your Ex is deemed disabled b/c of mental issues, the court can rule that you pay that person alimony til THEY DIE, if you can even believe that. This is so the state does not have to pick up the tab for social services on a mentally disabled person.
Likewise, the same thing with children. They are determined to see to it that someone other than the state pays the bills on behalf of that child. Since the other partner in this case was another woman and marriage is not recognized in Kansas -- the other woman had no standing whatsoever as far as legal rights, which would include legal responsibility of having to pay child support and maintenance.
However, you would think that there would be some moral responsibility the Ex partner felt towards the baby she considered her child -- and would simply want to help with this child's future. On the other hand, maybe she is helping but the bio mom is low income and looking for a way to get more help. When the state offers it, most folks are going to take advantage of it, i.e. such things as Medicaid.
I doubt if whatever agreement they had legally terminated them.
But, people confuse parental rights and responsibilities.
Just giving up your parental rights does not get you out of your legal responsibility to financially support a child. There either has to be someone stepping into your place as in a legal adoption or some other situation that a judge agrees to.
You cant get out of your legal obligation to support children you produce whether you are the mother or the father except through going through the state. Every state as far as I know holds you the parents responsible for supporting the child.
If you want the states agreement you are not legally responsible to support the child you have to follow the states laws. Some random woman off craigs list cant absolve you from a legal obligation established by the state. Who would think they would?
This is very true. And one thing that people must consider in this situation, is there is no way that the state knows if a "turkey baster" was involved or if there was an actual sexual relationship. If this man was able to get away with this, can you imagine how many men will try to use one of these "agreements" to absolve himself from parental rights? Should men be allowed to give away their parental rights, even if the woman agrees?
However, you would think that there would be some moral responsibility the Ex partner felt towards the baby she considered her child -- and would simply want to help with this child's future. On the other hand, maybe she is helping but the bio mom is low income and looking for a way to get more help. When the state offers it, most folks are going to take advantage of it, i.e. such things as Medicaid.
Or their relationship may have been on such bad terms that they do not have communication. Either way it's a horrible situation and may set precedent.
First parental right is not the same as parental responsibilities. One can loss or give up parental rights yet still have parental responsibilities.
Second, the contract was between the couple and the man. The state of Kansas was not a party in the contract. So with respect to the state of Kansas, that contact is irrelevant. In general, third parties are not require to abide by a contact they did not sign.
First parental right is not the same as parental responsibilities. One can loss or give up parental rights yet still have parental responsibilities.
Second, the contract was between the couple and the man. The state of Kansas was not a party in the contract. So with respect to the state of Kansas, that contact is irrelevant. In general, third parties are not require to abide by a contact they did not sign.
The contract may be irrelevant, but the fact that he is the biological father isn't.
He should have thought twice before he gave his sperm away.
Sperm can turn into a baby, and if it's his sperm,( in this case, where nothing was done "legally") I feel it's up to him to support the resulting child.
Maybe, if he's lucky, the woman's future partner (if there is one) could adopt the child, and he can relax.
Well, here's my question. Why was his name ever even given as the father?
Why didn't the mother of that child just put "unknown" on the birth certificate?
If his name had not been on the birth certificate, he would never had to sign papers giving up his parental rights, because as far as the court or legal system was concerned, he didn't exist. The father was "unknown."
This whole thing makes no sense to me.
That was my first thought on the whole mess. Made no sense to me that his name would appear anywhere. Glad I wasn't the only one with this train of thought!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
