[MP-Ryan]

You can't make this **** up:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-sperm-donor-fights-attempt-to-make-him-pay-child-support-to-lesbian-couple/article6841967/

When the 46-year-old donated sperm to Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner in 2009, Mr. Marotta relinquished all parental rights, including financial responsibility to the child. When Ms. Bauer and Ms. Schreiner filed for state assistance in Kansas this year, the state demanded the donor’s name so it could collect child support for the now 3-year-old girl.

The state contends the agreement between Mr. Marotta and the women is not valid because Kansas law requires a licensed physician to perform artificial insemination.

WTF Kansas.

[headdie]

buracrats with more boredom than sense

[jg18]

Ah, yes, Kansas continuing to make us Kansans proud.

Some details from the local paper: http://cjonline.com/news/2012-12-31/topeka-sperm-donor-child-support-case-politically-motivated (also see the left sidebar for related articles)

Sounds like a case of bureaucracy made extra-rigid for political reasons.

[Nuke]

thats what happens when you get sperm off of craigslist

[Mika]

Actually, I think the state of Kansas is correct in this particular case. Since there are some clauses for the fertility treatment in the state law, and since those clauses have not been followed, I don't find it unreasonable. Get your baby from the Craigslist, what the hell?

When you don't go by the book, then make sure the corner's you are cutting aren't important like somebody else's life.

[headdie]

Actually, I think the state of Kansas is correct in this particular case. Since there are some clauses for the fertility treatment in the state law, and since those clauses have not been followed, I don't find it unreasonable. Get your baby from the Craigslist, what the hell?

When you don't go by the book, then make sure the corner's you are cutting aren't important like somebody else's life.

I have to disagree, perhaps because of the differing relationship to the law in the UK and US but my opinion is that a "gentleman's" agreement such as this should hold so long as a) there was no coercion and b) the recipient's partner takes on the paternal legal and financial responsibility.

[Nuke]

which is fine and dandy until you go get state assistance. of course the state people tend to be a bunch of headhunters. they hate that helping people costs money and want to recoup their losses. the can flat out deny assistance to anyone who doesn't cough up any information that helps them do this (in fact they have a hard on for saying no and will over every little discrepency). since the insemination wasnt done in accords to state law then the state is well within its rights.

[headdie]

Indeed and thus enter the courts as we see here.

[Aardwolf]

So uh... what if it had been a rape baby instead? Then they would have been eligible, right? Crazy scheme, go!

[headdie]

The difference here is that both parties went into this as fully willing participants with, to my understanding, an agreement between them that neither would pursue the other for paternal rights or requirements.

need I point out the significant difference between this and rape

[Scotty]

Dammit Kansas.

[Aardwolf]

The difference here is that both parties went into this as fully willing participants with, to my understanding, an agreement between them that neither would pursue the other for paternal rights or requirements.

need I point out the significant difference between this and rape

Well yeah but if they had lied and said they didn't know who the rapist was, they'd be covered 

[Nuke]

was there a written contract or was it a verbal agreement? in case of the latter thats just being dumb. 

[headdie]

The difference here is that both parties went into this as fully willing participants with, to my understanding, an agreement between them that neither would pursue the other for paternal rights or requirements.

need I point out the significant difference between this and rape

Well yeah but if they had lied and said they didn't know who the rapist was, they'd be covered 

If dishonest.

was there a written contract or was it a verbal agreement? in case of the latter thats just being dumb. 

Verbal contracts, yer while legally binding are a bit flimsy if not witnessed by a a neutral person or preferably recorded.  fingers crossed they wrote this down.

[MP-Ryan]

This case is ridiculous on the face of it.  The fact of the matter is there were two people in a relationship with legal custody of a child.  Biological parentage doesn't enter into it.  It should be treated the same way as adoption - two legal parents, the origins of the child are irrelevant.

Here's a fun consideration - how is it not discriminatory for the state to require artificial insemination to go through a doctor, for which the applicant's will bear a financial cost, when there is no biological need to do so.

The whole case just reeks of discriminatory ridiculousness.  Anyone in Kansas who has ever considered being a sperm donor is probably re-thinking their position on it right about now.

[headdie]

I think discrimination is not quite the right angle here.

I would say that bureaucratic, possibly authoritarian is more where this falls.

[Mika]

I have to disagree, perhaps because of the differing relationship to the law in the UK and US but my opinion is that a "gentleman's" agreement such as this should hold so long as a) there was no coercion and b) the recipient's partner takes on the paternal legal and financial responsibility.

I don't have anything against gentlemen' agreements (I actually do that a lot at my work - working in the state controlled company gets you good at this!), but I do draw a line somewhere with them. Having a baby and upbringing somebody else is one of those cases where I wouldn't try doing those agreements, but go with the official route.

For some reason, I don't think that the printed story is all there is. Looking for a sperm donor in Craigslist is one of those WTF-thingies in this case. Yes, I know that state legislation require some things to be done, and can - and most likely will - refute all claims without correct information that is not within the law. Then again, the common sense thing, of course, would be to allow state support for this child, but then you open up the possibility of taking advantage of the state in other cases on the grounds that state law was overlooked here. This depends on the judiciary system, though.

With this kind of headline, it does have an effect on the number of sperm donors - but the headline is also misleading in my opinion. My understanding, though, is that the donors who have their paperwork correctly filled will face no consequences from the state side. It sounds like a first this kind of case, and may very well end up being solved by the court if the participants have sufficient amount of money. The donor will probably start to calculate the costs, and may end up paying for the child support because it may become cheaper in the long run than the court case.

[Dragon]

What the State of Kansas done, while mean, isn't bad, for the reasons you mentioned. In that case, I think both the couple and the guy who put his sperm up on Craiglist are guilty. This is not a way to handle matters this serious. While unofficial gentlemen' agreements are fine, in such a matter it'd be much safer to go the official route. Even if both parties are indeed gentlemen/ladies and would honor the agreement like it was etched in stone, the authorities would still have to deal with a new citizen of their state. While I agree there's too much of the bureaucracy involved, completely disregarding it's existence isn't a good idea.

Also, in that case, I think that those women actually took quite a big risk by not involving a doctor in the procedure. Craiglist isn't exactly a controlled source of sperm, and there could be some serious health risks involved.

In general, it seems that both the couple and the donor were reckless in their actions. Quite a mess resulted, but it seems that it could be worked out. For example, the guy could pay "official" child support, then they'd simply hand him him the money back (note, I don't know how it works in America, so this might not be so simple).

[The E]

What the State of Kansas done, while mean, isn't bad, for the reasons you mentioned. In that case, I think both the couple and the guy who put his sperm up on Craiglist is guilty. This is not a way to handle matters this serious.

Umm, yes, it very definitely is bad. Those guys had a civil agreement, maybe even a contract, to cover themselves against this sort of eventuality. That the state welfare office decided that that agreement (which apparently didn't cover the technicalities of the insemination process, just the providing of the sperm) was invalid because of the couple in question not jumping through the exact state-approved hoop is just bull****.

In my opinion, the two parts of this process (the aquisition and the use of the sperm in question) are separate from each other. This is essentially punishing the sperm donor for something that the recipients did, despite complete agreement between both the donor and the couple that said donor has nothing to do with raising and caring for the child in question.

Also, in that case, I think that those women actually took quite a big risk by not involving a doctor in the procedure. Craiglist isn't exactly a controlled source of sperm, and there could be some serious health risks involved.

Please stop posting about stuff you cannot know anything about. You do not know what procedures they used or didn't use. You do not know the details of the various deals that happened here. Do not make the mistake of creating a strawman.

In general, it seems that both the couple and the donor were reckless in their actions.

No. They made a deal, made a contract about it, concluded the deal, and went their separate ways. The only mistake they made was assuming that the local welfare office would honor that agreement and not get hung up on some bloody technicality that was pretty much designed to make the process of getting a child for couples like the one here as painful as possible.

For example, the guy could pay "official" child support, then they'd simply hand him him the money back (note, I don't know how it works in America, so this might not be so simple).

And simply disregarding the fact that a civil contract like the one these people made to ensure themselves against exactly this happening existed, and disregarding the fact that the actual parents of the child in question both agree that they, and only they are responsible, and disregarding the fact that they're capable of supporting the child on their own?

This is really about the principle of the matter.

[Luis Dias]

Apparently, said civil contract did not ensure themselves against this happening. Just because two people write a contract that binds them in any manner does not make that contract immediately valid wrt the state. There are rules that you must abide to, for instance working contracts are very restricted to what you can and cannot do.