But it says they want him to pay back the state for the Medicaid too, not just pay child support. And obviously the donor is going to be uncomfortable with that arrangement even as far as the child support goes because he has no way of knowing if they’ll change their minds later and start keeping it. And the mom will be uncomfortable with it because she has no way of knowing if he’ll try to assert parental rights at some point. Nobody wants to live with that type of uncertainty for the next 15 years.
Too bad she didn’t just tell them she had no idea who the father was.
Yep. A government entity that does not grant equal protection under the law is not a government entity that has the right to expect people to tell it the truth.
The couple offered a payment of $50, but after talking it over with his wife, the donor did it for free.
And the state medical aid has come mostly after the couple broke up, and the bio mom was ill and couldn’t work much.
As to why the other woman in the former couple is not responsible, it’s because she and her partner were not legally married. Kansas is not a state that recognizes same sex unions.
The state has an established procedure available, the point of which is to separate legitimate sperm donations from deadbeat fathers. I understand wanting to do things on the cheap, but the result is that these people have muddied the law and public opinion, and they’ve made things harder for future couples needing fertility assistance. The outrage in the OP is misplaced.
I’m not really sure what the outrage is over. NitroPress is absolutely right. The fact that the mothers and the donor had a contract is irrelevant; they can’t bargain away the child’s rights, or the state’s interest in ensuring the child is adequately supported. As Tom notes, there is a procedure that must be followed, and these people didn’t.
If the court allowed a contract essentially stating that a one night stand is merely a sperm donation to stand, how many deadbeats wouldn’t use that option to weasel out of their obligation? Can you imagine the line of deadbeats fathers at the courthouse claiming they were merely a sperm donor?
BS on the poor people argument. If a woman wants to get pregnant, I’m sure she’ll figure out how. The question is whether or not the father pays, not whether the woman can conceive. And that question is resolved when she seeks public assistance for the child. Who should pay, the taxpayer or the father?
Valid application of the law. The woman and the child are receiving what they need, and the dude is apparently going to pay.
You don’t know what it is to be really poor, do you? try spending a few months working/living in rural Kentucky or West Virginia.
And never mind all that, the bio mom had medical problems that kept her from working very much. Even if she were more middle class, that can take you down pretty quick, financially.
No, it’s not. That’s not how it works. Even assuming that the Constitution guaranteed the lesbian couple the right to marry and/or jointly adopt (I think it does, but it’s hardly a foregone conclusion), the guy’s legal obligations are a separate issue. We don’t even know if the couple would have married if they’d had the right.
What troubles me is that you can’t “bargain” away the child’s rights, but you can “procedure” away the child’s rights.
It’s a bit of a phony argument that we’re placing the child’s needs first and foremost, but if you shell out 300 bucks to a doctor, the child’s needs are cast aside since you did it all legal-like.
The issue of her medical problems is after the fact, and irrelevant.
I do think that people should not have children at a time in their lives when they are too poor to provide any support whatsoever to those children. A person that cannot scrape $300 together every couple of months, even under the extraordinary pressure of wanting a child, will not be able to support that child in any way, shape or form after the child is born. A person that cannot scrape $300 together every couple of months will not be able to survive the 6-12 weeks without income that will follow the birth of a child. A person who cannot scrape $300 a month together will not be able to pay the $1000+/month needed for infant childcare in the first year, or live with no income as they stay home to take care of the child.
The 900 pound gorilla in the room is the failure to allow the other partner to adopt the child. That policy is a loss for the child, the mother, the partner and the state.