[Black Wolf]

I wonder if this would even make news if it wasn't for the fact that there was a lesbian couple involved? At first glance, it seems to me that the state is simply trying to prevent the establishment of a precedent wherein an agreement between two people can invalidate the law. Take away the more sensationalist details, and what you have here, at its bare bones, is two people deciding that the law doesn't apply to them. After all, it's not as though a precedent in this area couldn't be abused.

[Ghostavo]

Is the fact that the insemination was artificial relevant? What would happen if the guy inseminated "naturally" and they had the same arrangement?

[NGTM-1R]

Is the fact that the insemination was artificial relevant? What would happen if the guy inseminated "naturally" and they had the same arrangement?

It would appear to be the primary thrust of the case, because the fact it wasn't done by a doctor seems to be the state's whole argument.

[karajorma]

I wonder if this would even make news if it wasn't for the fact that there was a lesbian couple involved? At first glance, it seems to me that the state is simply trying to prevent the establishment of a precedent wherein an agreement between two people can invalidate the law. Take away the more sensationalist details, and what you have here, at its bare bones, is two people deciding that the law doesn't apply to them. After all, it's not as though a precedent in this area couldn't be abused.

Yep, I think this is the actual problem.

Once you allow such contracts to have the ability to nullify the law you open the door to all kinds of problems. There are lots of men who have children who would quite happily try to get the mother to sign similar agreements so that they could get out of child support. And there are lots of women who would quite happily sign to get the guy out of their lives.

The loser is the taxpayer.


It is possible that this is only occurring because they are lesbians, but before I start complaining about discrimination, I'd want to see proof that this doesn't happen in the case of a married couple who used the same methods due to the husband's infertility. Admittedly such cases might not come to light cause the husband might simply be declared the father.

[BloodEagle]

Is the fact that the insemination was artificial relevant? What would happen if the guy inseminated "naturally" and they had the same arrangement?

It would appear to be the primary thrust of the case, because the fact it wasn't done by a doctor seems to be the state's whole argument.

[NGTM-1R]

Well, I'm glad somebody got it.

[Aardwolf]

So... wait... the state is suing the guy who donated the sperm... in order to force him to pay for the women's child support... because they asked the state to pay for their child support?

So basically the state is suing him on behalf of the women he donated the sperm to? Unless the women asked the state to force him to pay up, that should not be happening. All that should have happened is the state telling these women "no, if you want someone to pay child support it will be him, not the state".

[Nuke]

well they went to the state to get medical benefits for the child due to financial difficulty. the state then went after child the support, because the artificial insemination was done via craigslist, instead of a doctor. getting any kind of state or federal benefits is generally a real cluster**** for all those involved.

[Thaeris]

well they went to the state to get medical benefits for the child due to financial difficulty. the state then went after child the support, because the artificial insemination was done via craigslist, instead of a doctor. getting any kind of state or federal benefits is generally a real cluster**** for all those involved.

If the dick didn't stick, you must aquit.

[QuantumDelta]

I was about to type a long explanation about how the UK CSA would probably also pursue this case if they followed the letter (not intent) of the law, but I realised while typing the explanation I was probably breaking the law myself (as you sign a non-disclosure(well, official secrets act) about a lot of the stuff you do (And ALL case related stuff about other people) when you work there).
Needless to say though, from the WORDING of the legal fluff covering child maint for benefit recipients this case would probably still go through our system until someone with a brain got to it.

[Aardwolf]

I still don't get it... why the state is suing anybody, if the couple didn't ask the state to do so?

[QuantumDelta]

In the UK at least (I assume it's very similar in the US because our (current) laws on it are based on theirs in regards to this stuff AFAIK), if a parent with care goes on to state benefits, and the state is therefore providing for the child, as well as the parent with care, the childs part of that benefit should in part, be recouped by the non-resident parent, the PWC gets no choice in the matter.

In that regard this has probably followed the letter of the law.
The intent of the law however... to see a child monetarily (when unfortunately not possible to be fully) supported by two parents probably doesn't cover two parents and a unofficial donor.