Government suing sperm donor for child support

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#2 Posted by GamingTitan (537 posts) -

Why does the state care. Why are they suing?

seems like a contractual issue. If he was supposed to have a certified doctor do it and they can prove that he didn't, and broke the contract, then they may have a case~

#3 Edited by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

"thelibertarianrepublic.com"

#4 Posted by deeliman (2422 posts) -

Lol, why should he pay for that? Is he even considered that child's father by the law?

#5 Edited by byof_america (1363 posts) -

So the state is after him, not the divorcees? That's weird, Kansas is weird, this whole situation is weird. Is there precedence for this type of thing?

#6 Posted by Person0 (2944 posts) -

Should have followed the law... they didn't so its their fault.

#7 Edited by SaintLeonidas (26156 posts) -

From another site:

"The case hinges on the fact that no doctors were used for the artificial insemination. The state argues that because William Marotta didn't work through a clinic or doctor, as required by state law, he can be held responsible for about $6,000 that the child's biological mother received through public assistance – as well as future child support.

At least 10 other states have similar requirements in their laws, including California, Illinois and Missouri, the Kansas Department of Children and Families argued in a prepared court documents it gave to The Associated Press late Wednesday."

Looks like he is shit out of luck.

#8 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -

That liberal strong hold of Kansas, I tell ya.

#9 Posted by BetaVulgaris (34 posts) -
#10 Posted by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

@Makhaidos: Haha, exactly.

I don't think people got the gist of my cleverly elucidated rebuttal. :(

#11 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

@deeliman said:

Lol, why should he pay for that? Is he even considered that child's father by the law?

That means nothing; you don't have to sign a birth certificate to be the legal father of a child.

#12 Edited by the_bi99man (11047 posts) -

From another site:

"The case hinges on the fact that no doctors were used for the artificial insemination. The state argues that because William Marotta didn't work through a clinic or doctor, as required by state law, he can be held responsible for about $6,000 that the child's biological mother received through public assistance – as well as future child support.

At least 10 other states have similar requirements in their laws, including California, Illinois and Missouri, the Kansas Department of Children and Families argued in a prepared court documents it gave to The Associated Press late Wednesday."

Looks like he is shit out of luck.

.... Am I missing something? I still don't get it. So no doctors were used for the artificial insemination? Was the guy even involved at that point? Or had he donated sperm to a bank or something, and then the woman went and fucked up the insemination process? Or what? At what point(s) in this process was the guy involved? Because it seems to me that knowing that would be much more important than whether doctors were involved.

#13 Posted by THE_DRUGGIE (24964 posts) -

This is why you always let it out in the toilet.

Actually, scratch that. There might be alligator women down there and you don't want an alligator monster baby.

#14 Posted by SaintLeonidas (26156 posts) -

@SaintLeonidas said:

From another site:

"The case hinges on the fact that no doctors were used for the artificial insemination. The state argues that because William Marotta didn't work through a clinic or doctor, as required by state law, he can be held responsible for about $6,000 that the child's biological mother received through public assistance – as well as future child support.

At least 10 other states have similar requirements in their laws, including California, Illinois and Missouri, the Kansas Department of Children and Families argued in a prepared court documents it gave to The Associated Press late Wednesday."

Looks like he is shit out of luck.

.... Am I missing something? I still don't get it. So no doctors were used for the artificial insemination? Was the guy even involved at that point? Or had he donated sperm to a bank or something, and then the woman went and fucked up the insemination process? Or what? At what point(s) in this process was the guy involved? Because it seems to me that knowing that would be much more important than whether doctors were involved.

" But the Kansas Department for Children and Families argues the agreement isn't valid, because instead of working with a doctor, Marotta agreed to drop off containers with his sperm at the couple's home, according to documents faxed to the Shawnee County District Court late Wednesday and provided to the AP.

The women handled the artificial insemination themselves using a syringe, and Schreiner eventually became pregnant, according to the documents."

Sketchy as f*ck to begin with.

#15 Posted by lamprey263 (23495 posts) -

she should be suing her former partner for child support, not the sperm donor

#16 Edited by sonicare (53458 posts) -