Could my state gov't get any more stupid?

The above link is to an article in the Topeka Capital-Journal about a case that has now been reported all over the world.

A straight man made a sperm donation to a lesbian couple. Both sides signed an agreement. The man said he wouldn’t seek parental rights, and the women agreed to seek no child support, ever, from him.

The little girl that was concieved by the private(not through a doctor) donation is now three years old, and the couple is no longer together. Because the biological mother needed state assistance for medical care for the kid, the state forced her to name who the “father” was. Now Kansas wants that money back, and wants the guy to pay child support.

The former couple is totally supportive of the guy, and it wasn’t their choice what’s now happening.

Read the article, or Google to read about it at dozens of other sites. Jeez Louise, Kansas is still in the Stone Age. With a governor like Brownback, who opposes abortion and same sex unions, it makes you wonder, if it had been a straight unmarried couple, if this would be going on.

Yes, it would. States and courts take a very strong stand on the rights of children to be supported by their parents, and the duty of parents to support their children, and mere wish-away agreements don’t change that.

If the couple had been a woman and a man, and for whatever reasons they solicited this donation and paternity, the situation would be exactly the same. The laws applying to the non-biological parent are weak and contestable; the laws binding the biological parents, even the absent one, are based on some of the strongest social covenants in our legal system.

It’s not the state’s obligation to support a child who has parents with means to do so. I’m no teabagger, but I stand behind that position.

Just to get it clear in what is left of my mind:

If the couple had been man and woman, unmarried, and the woman had gotten sperm elsewhere to have a baby while the couple was together, if he later leaves her the sperm donor has to pay to raise a child that, theoretically, both of the members of the couple wanted but the sperm donor didn’t?

I assume none of this applies if the donation was anonymous, but then who does the state go after? The clinic?

Just goes to show, no good deed goes unpunished!

You do understand that if this were established policy, nobody would ever donate sperm?

As it is, I imagine men who have donated sperm are contacting the sperm centers as we speak and telling them to withdraw their donations.

Actually, Kansas denied a sperm donor parental rights in 2007:

Does the same reasoning apply to a woman who puts up a new born baby for adoption? How about surrogates?

Wait a minute…

The linked article states…

The Kansas Department for Children and Families subsequently filed a child support claim against Marotta, claiming the contract was void because a licensed physician didn’t perform the insemination.

I assume that means they did it the old fashioned way. The application of the law may suck, but to uphold the parties contract would open the door for every male, with the help of a consenting female, to avoid his responsibility for child support by claiming he was a only sperm donor. I think the lesson is to have an MD perform the procedure.

No, he delivered the sperm to them and they used it(turkey baster?) to impregnate the woman.

I wonder how he delivered it…never mind. I mean, it doesn’t have a long shelf life…

Someone is bound to post a sniggering, smutty and juvenile joke here. This time, however, it isn’t me.

The woman should just reimburse the donor. Rather than fight the stupid.

This is actually kind of complicated, and I say that as the mother of a child conceived using donor sperm.

The problem is that no one should be able to sign away someone else’s rights. The right to be supported is the child’s, not the mothers. When a woman doesn’t seek child support payments from her kid’s father because she doesn’t want to deal with him, or is deeply non-confrontational, or is worried people will accuse her of being a gold-digging bitch, and is more worried about that than about her kid, she’s stealing from her kid and giving the money to the other parent. I am willing to believe that there are times when it is legitimately in the kids’ best interest not to pursue support, but I think it would behoove more custodial parents to be aware that the support belongs to their kids, not them.

On the other hand, donating sperm does not make someone a father. Exactly what does make someone a father is a lot more complicated than that, and it’s not really well defined: it’s not the sex act, because lots of babies are conceived without sex. It’s not being married, because lots of parents aren’t married. It’s not the genetics, because lots of men are legal fathers (and moms are legal mothers) to kids that they don’t share DNA with.

I mean, if she had gotten pregnant by him through regular but non-affectionate sex, and they had the same agreement, would this ruling still seem unjust? If so, why does the method of conception matter?

If, on the other hand, they were a boyfriend/girlfriend and had normal sex, got pregnant, he freaked out, she thought she didn’t need his money/want his involvement, would you be ok with her signing away her daughter’s claim for support? Why does the mood of the sex matter?

If a happy couple intentionally used IUI to get pregnant using the man’s sperm, but then broke up before the baby was born, should that man be able to get out of supporting his kid because he was just a donor?

What if a happy couple conceived a child using a sperm donor, but broke up before the baby was born. Should that man be liable for support?

So it’s really confusing about what, exactly, makes a man a father. I don’t have too much sympathy for this couple because due to all this confusion, we have a whole complex set of institutional apparatus established to make it clear that whatever actually makes a father, sperm donation is not enough. Why anyone would ever circumvent that apparatus is beyond me: it’s literally like $300 to have sperm washed and and IUI performed, if you aren’t doing anything else. Having a lawyer draft whatever agreement they had must have cost more.

What we really need is a system that recognizes both women as legal parents to the child so that the state can compel support from the other mom. That’s the reality here.

My guess is, since she used state help to pay her medical bills, is that the couple didn’t have a lot of money, and wanted to do this on the cheap.

So poor people don’t get to do sperm donation? That’s (no pun intended ROFL) dickish.

People who cannot afford sperm donation should be having children???
I don’t get why the other woman in this scenario isn’t being held accountable for the kid. The only involvement the man has was to hand over a jar of goo, everything else is on the backs of the two women. Just because the one doesn’t want to live with the, what?, bio-mom? doesn’t mean she should no longer be responsible for the child she was involved with in bringing into the world.

People who can’t afford sperm donation have kids every day.

And as far as the other lesbian partner, I agree.

Yeah, the natural way. Not by spending a bunch of other people’s money to pay for a sperm donor.

IMO the issue here is that the bio mom’s partner wasn’t allowed to legally adopt the kid (according to the article). Then it would have been their own dumbass faults for not doing that.

Yep. Anti-gay hatred FTW.

Wait… Whose money did they use to pay for a sperm donor? I thought he whole issue is they cheaped out and went home brew, so they wouldn’t have to pay anything?

Excuse me, miss…I speak curlcoat! Allow me to translate.

Because these people used a sperm donor and then needed government assistance to care for the kid, that’s exactly the same thing as them taking money out of your and my pockets at gunpoint to pay for their disgusting urge to reproduce. Ergo, we paid for their sperm donor.