Kansas wants a man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple to pay child support. The state says documents the man signed absolving him of parental duties are invalid because the donation was arranged via Craigslist — so now he’s on the hook for about $6,000 the child’s birth mother received in public assistance. Is the state right to seek restitution of the funds?
Phillip Correll: If the state of Kansas would recognize same sex marriages, then they would go after non-custodial parent. But because of conservative Republicans’ demands that these relationships not be recognized, the state is going after the sperm donor. This smells like the Phill Kline witch hunts.
Rod Keenan: Wow.
Brad Hallier: I wonder how many legit child support cases are ignored by the state, yet the state of Kansas goes after this guy?
Susan Baresel: First they were a couple so they never should have received public assistance at all! That being said, they should go after the other half of the couple for the child support. Regardless of the fact that Kansas does not recognize same sex marriage, this couple apparently arranged this together.
Phillip Correll: In the state’s eyes, there is a man and woman as the parents. They cannot recognize by de facto something they are fundamentally opposed to, even though it is the right thing to do. What is even more hypocritical, the state may force a man to pay child support even though DNA tests prove he is not the father.
Jack Phillips: To have legal protection, a sperm donor must donate through a sperm bank or similar manner that is medically supervised. The mother’s partner does not legally become a parent unless she adopts the child.
Lee’s Summit Couponista: This poor kid has to grow up with two mothers that looks for sperm on Craigslist and a father that is trying to make a buck by emptying his contents in a cup all while enjoying the lifestyle that comes with public assistance. What is wrong with people?!
Shelley Chambers Granger: It’s sad since the state never went after my son’s father 33 years ago. No this man has no bussiness paying for her stupidity. Neither should a friend of mine who didnt know he had a child for 26 years until the state came after him for child support. These people need to get there act together and make a bit of sense.
Jason-Amy Beckham: The State of Kansas and making sense are often worlds apart.
June Trieb: It’s ridiculous!
Cathy Prather: I agree with Jason-Amy. If he signed over any parental rights legally would that avoid issues in the future?
JayDubIII: That’s rich. I guess the State of Kansas doesn’t recognize legal contracts anymore.
SmartConservative: The problem is the legal contract was with the wrong party. Child support is not a right of the custodial parent; it is a right of the child. The mother could not sign away the child’s right to support, and the child, being a minor, cannot sign it away either. Normally, a sperm donor has no parental obligations because state laws (in every state) explicitly exempt sperm donors. However, Kansas defines sperm donation as requiring a doctor’s help. Since the mothers in question introduced the sperm themselves, this judge ruled that this was not a case of sperm donation. This strikes me a poor ruling. Guys, guard your sperm!
lsbrew: contract probably wasn’t legal. You could write up a piece of paper promising me no legal action resulting from your death. We both sign, and then I shoot you. Guess what? I’ll be charged with murder.
tm1946: Supreme Court says man has no right if a dr. implanted the sperm, State says man has to pay child support if no dr involved. Guys better just keep your sperm where it belongs.
Slam Dunk: The state of Kansas will pay more for the court costs and the lawsuits that are coming than the amount of aid they gave to this woman and her child. And all of it is on the taxpayers. I would be screaming about their frivolous use of taxpayers money!
rrwjes: The state of Kansas is embarrassing itself. With the conservative majority in Brownbacks’ taliban-like government it is only going to get more preposterous and more embarrassing to Kansas residents who are more enlightened and not knuckledraggers.
ND52: What are you talking about rrwjes ? This entire charade smacks of liberal, man-bashing feminism.
SmartConservative: Sorry, this isn’t anti-man or liberal; it is pro-taxpayer conservatism run amuck. Most states now try to recoup any welfare costs by finding and billing a responsible payer. Have to provide a free meal to an abandoned kid? Track down the mother and bill her. I know a case of where social workers removed a husband with severe Alzheimer’s disease from the home because the wife couldn’t watch him while she was at work. (He was a danger to himself and others when unsupervised.) The husband was put in a institution that could watch him 24 hours a day. The state then sued the wife for the cost of that care. Of course, if she could have afforded such care, she wouldn’t have tried taking care of her husband herself.