# Could my state gov't get any more stupid? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 3, 2013, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900 "2013-01-03T00:00:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900/61 "2013-01-03T22:48:21Z")
> [@drewtwo99](#): > > I don’t understand what the problem is. If the guy’s wages get garnished or whatever, the woman can just give the money back to him. > > What’s the big fucking deal? > > Also, isn’t it possible to surrender your parental rights, but you have to go to court and do it with permission from a judge? You can’t just sign a piece of paper. A judge has to order it. > > Does anyone know under what conditions you will be allowed to surrender your rights? Presumably it works a similar way there as it does here, and the child support reduces the amount of assistance the government will pay them, or will count as income that may make them ineligible for things like medicaid. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900/62 "2013-01-03T23:11:21Z")
> [@al27052](#): > > And cases like that are why I don’t support requiring men to pay child support. There’s an anti-male slant to those laws. I’d like to hear more about that, but I’m afraid you’d end up at the bottom of a pile on, and I’m not totally sure you’d understand why. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900/63 "2013-01-04T00:53:25Z")
The article quotes Stephanie Mott, state chair of the Kansas Equality Coalition > [@](#): > > “I don’t think the state would have gone after them if this was an unmarried, opposite sex couple,” Mott said. “I’d be shocked if they did.” and the article goes on to explain > [@](#): > > Unmarried straight couples can get around this issue by filing two, single parent adoptions — a provision currently not available to same sex partners in Kansas. This is the issue, that straight couples are also doing the same thing and have options which lesbian couples do not. It’s hard to tell from the article but it sounds like the state is treating them differently. ---
**Author:** ![al27052](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@al27052](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/al27052)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900/64 "2013-01-04T05:46:19Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I’d like to hear more about that, but I’m afraid you’d end up at the bottom of a pile on, and I’m not totally sure you’d understand why. Oh, I’d understand why, and I’m not willing to end up at the bottom of the dogpile. It’s not so much that I have an absolute problem with the concept in an abstract sense…but cases where men who aren’t even the biological father are forced to pay child support end up poisoning the well. The policies and court decisions around this are so fucked-up it’s unbelievable. I had a friend who was getting 70-hours a week every week at work, with 30 of that 70 being overtime. His child support was calculated with that number as his total income. 6 months later he got dropped back (along with everybody else in his job title in the state) to about 40 hours a week. He still had to pay the same amount. The court refused to recalculate. He was paying almost his entire take-home pay in child support. That’s not cool. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900/65 "2013-01-04T15:05:30Z")
> [@al27052](#): > > she doesn’t have to TELL anyone what she’s doing. > > For that matter, TELLING the state that she knew the father was the first mistake. It’s not the state’s business, IMHO. It’s not the state’s business who the father of a child is? Um, okay. State birth and death registries - which list both biological parents - are pretty much a ubiquitous feature of the developed world. > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > This is the issue, that straight couples are also doing the same thing and have options which lesbian couples do not. It’s hard to tell from the article but it sounds like the state is treating them differently. It may be hard to tell from the article but it’s already been mentioned like three times in this thread. Including be my: > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > If there’s an unfair aspect to this, it’s the dumbass rule that kept the other lesbian partner from adopting the child. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > …Kansas would not have recognized the adoption of the child by the biological mother’s lesbian partner. ---
**Author:** ![al27052](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@al27052](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/al27052)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900/66 "2013-01-04T15:13:20Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s not the state’s business who the father of a child is? Um, okay. State birth and death registries - which list both biological parents - are pretty much a ubiquitous feature of the developed world. There are plenty of birth certificates out there with no father listed, both from sperm bank situations and from women who aren’t sure of (or don’t want to list) who the father is. In fact, I think my own birth certificate doesn’t list the father, although my mother actually knew who it was. IMO, the state’s right to know my business is directly proportional to its ability to provide equal protection under the law. Kansas does NOT provide such protection. Ergo, it’s not their business. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900/67 "2013-01-04T15:47:44Z")
I guess that’s not a totally unreasonable position, but your opinion counts for squat. ---
**Author:** ![al27052](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@al27052](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/al27052)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900/68 "2013-01-04T16:42:38Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I guess that’s not a totally unreasonable position, but your opinion counts for squat. My opinion counts if is shared by judges and lawmakers, which is appears it increasingly is, on the subject of gay rights. As far as playing dumb with the government on the issue of paternity, that’s common sense. What they don’t know won’t hurt them, and their lack of equal protection under the law removes any semblance of authority on the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900/69 "2013-01-04T18:46:14Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > [Old thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=236178)(From 2004) > News story > [http://www.mommyish.com/2011/11/23/woman-steals-ex-boyfriends-sperm-has-twins-sues-for-child-support-836/](http://www.mommyish.com/2011/11/23/woman-steals-ex-boyfriends-sperm-has-twins-sues-for-child-support-836/) > [http://www.bionews.org.uk/page\_113236.asp](http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_113236.asp) The scary thing is I wasn’t even referring to that case, which I do not recall hearing before. I was thinking of this one: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7024930/#.UOcjFKzNmSo](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7024930/#.UOcjFKzNmSo) > [@](#): > > Phillips accuses Dr. Sharon Irons of a “calculated, profound personal betrayal” after their affair six years ago, saying she secretly kept semen after they had oral sex, then used it to get pregnant. > > He said he didn’t find out about the child for nearly two years, when Irons filed a paternity lawsuit. DNA tests confirmed Phillips was the father, the court papers state. > > Phillips was ordered to pay about $800 a month in child support, said Irons’ attorney, Enrico Mirabelli. ---
**Author:** ![al27052](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@al27052](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/al27052)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900/70 "2013-01-04T19:05:27Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > The scary thing is I wasn’t even referring to that case, which I do not recall hearing before. > > I was thinking of this one: > [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7024930/#.UOcjFKzNmSo](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7024930/#.UOcjFKzNmSo) This is why I don’t like those laws, and why I ESPECIALLY don’t like the legal precedents that have been set by judges in these types of cases. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900/71 "2013-01-04T19:55:21Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > The scary thing is I wasn’t even referring to that case, which I do not recall hearing before. > > I was thinking of this one: > [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7024930/#.UOcjFKzNmSo](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7024930/#.UOcjFKzNmSo) There’s actually another one, which is briefly mentioned in the old thread. The summary below is actually in the footnotes of the case you linked to. > [@](#): > > In State v. Frisard, 694 So.2d 1032 (La.Ct.App.1997), the child’s mother filed a paternity suit against the father, who denied having sexual intercourse with the mother, to whom he was not married. He alleged she, a nursing assistant, performed oral sex on him in a hospital, made him wear a condom, and used his sperm to inseminate herself in a nearby bathroom with a “red looking bulb with a glass tube.” Frisard, 694 So.2d at 1035. In addition to DNA results and plaintiff’s affidavit, in which she stated she had sexual intercourse with defendant and did not have intercourse with any other man 30 days before or after the date of conception, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana explained that defendant’s “testimony showed that he had some sort of sexual contact with plaintiff around the time frame of alleged conception, although he denied that they had sexual intercourse.” Frisard, 694 So.2d at 1035-36. > > Phillips v. Irons, 1-03-2992, 2005 WL 4694579 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900/72 "2013-01-04T19:58:56Z")
The thing is…I can see why the courts err on the side of ordering child support. It’s basically a he-said she-said case where a baby was made, and if the precedent is to side with the allegation that there was no sex and she impregnated herself with condom-semen then every deadbeat dad in the nation would be arguing they never had sex. Not to say it doesn’t or can’t happen. I’m just saying that I can see why it’s hard to side with the person with no evidence that sex didn’t happen, rather than the person with a baby as a result of sperm meeting egg somehow. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900/73 "2013-01-07T04:54:20Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > 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. Right, but by that logic, it is indefensible to take the money from the mothers. The thing is, that’s not what child support money is about. It’s about saying that the parents have a responsibility to pay for their children, and the state stepping in to punish them if they do not adhere to this responsibility. If all you cared about was making sure the child was supported, then the amount of money rewarded would be the same for every child, and it would come from the same place all other welfare comes from–our taxes. There’s no reason to involve the parents if the parents didn’t do anything wrong. The relevance in this case is that, if none of the parents, biological or otherwise, want to press charges against the other, it is not the State’s business to decide that they need to be punished anyways. If the state cared about the child’s welfare, they’d would have given the benefits rather than force the mother to invalidate her contract. Yes, if punishment were their primary goal, they’d go after the other mother, or, at least, modify the laws so they could do it next time. But neither is their goal, and they’ve made that quite clear. They are doing it for the money. ---
**Author:** ![StarvingButStrong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/starvingbutstrong/32/335_2.png) [@StarvingButStrong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StarvingButStrong)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900/74 "2013-01-07T07:39:58Z")
never mind ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900/75 "2013-01-07T14:11:44Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Yes, if punishment were their primary goal, they’d go after the other mother, or, at least, modify the laws so they could do it next time. But neither is their goal, and they’ve made that quite clear. They are doing it for the money. Nobody anywhere has said that punishment is the primary goal. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900/76 "2013-01-07T14:20:22Z")
> [@Baker](#): > > 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. This brings up what I think is a more pressing question. Gay, straight - doesn’t matter. If the mother can’t afford to raise the kid, why did she have it in the first place? Children are not cuddly dolls and playtoys that you have to make yourself feel better. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900/77 "2013-01-07T14:50:33Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > other mother If I didn’t support gay marriage before, I would now just for the possible Coraline references. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900/78 "2013-01-07T14:53:11Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > This brings up what I think is a more pressing question. Gay, straight - doesn’t matter. If the mother can’t afford to raise the kid, why did she have it in the first place? Children are not cuddly dolls and playtoys that you have to make yourself feel better. Because she was in a committed relationship in the confines of which she could afford to raise the kid, apparently. ---
**Author:** ![StarvingButStrong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/starvingbutstrong/32/335_2.png) [@StarvingButStrong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StarvingButStrong)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900/79 "2013-01-07T15:11:35Z")
I’ve been thinking about this, and a slightly different angle occured to me. There’s nothing ‘special’ about the government/society not honoring a contract between a woman and a ‘sperm donor’ which calls for the man to have no financial responsibility for the child. The government would also not feel bound by a similar contract between husband and wife. We – aka society – have a basic beliefs that 1) Children are entitled to be cared for and 2) That first in line to care for children are the people who brought them into existence. We’ve modified it a bit to allow for someone else to stand in for one or both of the biological parents, but we make sure that the stand-in is legally committed before we allow the biological person to step out. In this case, the pair didn’t do it legally, and so the ‘out’ isn’t available to the sperm donor. So… he was stupid to agree to this back road method, and we all know you mostly get to pay a price for stupidity. And if you think that’s unfair, well, carry it to extremes: a M/F couple draw up a contract. They will have a child and NEITHER of them are to be held financially responsible for the child. Neither of them have to buy food or clothing for the child, let alone pay for college. Do you imagine a judge would do anything beyond snort as he ignored that contract? ---
**Author:** ![random6x7](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8baadc/32.png) [@random6x7](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/random6x7)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900/80 "2013-01-07T16:16:26Z")
Is there a reason to assume that the couple didn’t use a doctor because they couldn’t afford it? The first article doesn’t say anything like that, but I’ve certainly not read everything on the case. There are other reasons they may have done it the way they did. Based on minor Googling, Kansas only has IVF clinics in Wichita and Kansas City. If there weren’t doctors in their area who could do it, it may not have made sense to them to take extra time off to travel when they were hoping for a baby within the year, especially since the bio-mom didn’t have reproductive health issues. I know I’d prefer to save my vacation and sick time for the actual kid. Or maybe the doctors they went to were bigoted or had full schedules or were just not people they trusted. This doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have known the law and understood the potential ramifications, but it’s a complicated situation, made even more complicated by their sexual orientation and the backwards attitudes of the law towards it. Are there other cases in Kansas where straight couples did a similar thing without problem? Or maybe they just took a gamble - which people do all the time, with worse odds - and ended up losing big. My blame is still on the state, and any state, that refuses to allow equal rights to everyone. This wouldn’t have happened if the couple were allowed to marry and adopt one another’s biological kids. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-my-state-govt-get-any-more-stupid/645900.md?page=5)