Government suing sperm donor for child support

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for mingmao3046
#1 Posted by mingmao3046 (2683 posts) -

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/government-suing-sperm-donor-child-support/#axzz2imfyAeKN

wow

Avatar image for GamingTitan
#2 Posted by GamingTitan (657 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~

Avatar image for Makhaidos
#3 Edited by Makhaidos (2162 posts) -

"thelibertarianrepublic.com"

Avatar image for deeliman
#4 Posted by deeliman (3746 posts) -

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

Avatar image for byof_america
#5 Edited by byof_america (1856 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?

Avatar image for deactivated-59f03d6ce656b
#6 Posted by deactivated-59f03d6ce656b (2944 posts) -

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

Avatar image for SaintLeonidas
#7 Edited by SaintLeonidas (26735 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.

Avatar image for Ace6301
#8 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -

That liberal strong hold of Kansas, I tell ya.

Avatar image for BetaVulgaris
#9 Posted by BetaVulgaris (36 posts) -

@Makhaidos: Haha, exactly.

Avatar image for Makhaidos
#10 Posted by Makhaidos (2162 posts) -

@BetaVulgaris said:

@Makhaidos: Haha, exactly.

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

Avatar image for Fightingfan
#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.

Avatar image for the_bi99man
#12 Edited by the_bi99man (11244 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.

Avatar image for THE_DRUGGIE
#13 Posted by THE_DRUGGIE (25057 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.

Avatar image for SaintLeonidas
#14 Posted by SaintLeonidas (26735 posts) -

@the_bi99man said:

@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.

Avatar image for lamprey263
#15 Posted by lamprey263 (34501 posts) -

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

Avatar image for sonicare
#16 Edited by sonicare (55462 posts) -

@THE_DRUGGIE: Killer croc.