Donate Sperm.....pay child support.

[Sooner5030]

Wow....kinda scary. Not sure this is a good signal to send to folks that donate sperm. Even in cases where an "after the fact" relationship is established I'm not sure this is a good idea.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/30/16254404-kansas-demands-that-sperm-donor-pay-child-support

[cleller]

(after reading story)

Just more of what happens when conception becomes part of a freak show watched over by the state.

[LiveLaughLove]

That's a complete crock. Lesbo-A-Go-Go #1 or Lesbo-A-Go-Go #2 should pay the child support. I mean which ever one was the Dad, er, the one that left, unless they mutually agreed, or the Bull Dyke one, unless both are Bulls. I mean the one with the swinging meat, well, no not that. The guy of the "couple".

Unless both were guy girls, then it would be the one with more testosterone, er, the one with the beard. No, I mean the one with the smaller boobs. Unless their fat and have big moobs. Well that's just silly, they wouldn't be moobs would they? They'd be appendages of mammorial quantitative value.

Geez, this modern life living is complicated. Imagine what its gonna be like for the kid.

A Dad that pays child support because he yacked in a cup, and two momma's that may or may not look more manly than Dad. Yeehaw.

[StoopTroup]

I've seen guys get stuck with Child Support even though they weren't the Sperm Donor. He merely dated a Gal that got knocked up before they started dating.

[KantoSooner]

I've seen guys get stuck with Child Support even though they weren't the Sperm Donor. He merely dated a Gal that got knocked up before they started dating.

Did he share the legal theory behind that with you?

[Midtowner]

If you just follow the letter of the Uniform Parentage Act which states:


B. The father-child relationship is established between a man and a child by:

1. An unrebutted presumption of the man’s paternity of the child under Section 8 of the Uniform Parentage Act;

2. An effective acknowledgment of paternity by the man under Article 3 of the Uniform Parentage Act, unless the acknowledgment has been timely rescinded or successfully challenged;

3. An adjudication of the man’s paternity;

4. Adoption of the child by the man; or

5. As otherwise provided by law.

Then as to the presumption, these are the situations where you can be "presumed" the father:


A. A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

1. He and the mother of the child are married to each other and the child is born during the marriage;

2. He and the mother of the child were married to each other and the child is born within three hundred (300) days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, dissolution of marriage or after decree of separation;

3. Before the birth of the child, he and the mother of the child married each other in apparent compliance with law, even if the attempted marriage is or could be declared invalid, and the child is born during the invalid marriage or within three hundred (300) days after its termination by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, a decree of separation, or dissolution of marriage;

4. After the birth of the child, he and the mother of the child married each other in apparent compliance with law, whether or not the marriage is or could be declared invalid, and he voluntarily asserted his paternity of the child, and:

a. the assertion is in a record with the State Department of Health, Division of Vital Records or the Department of Human Services,

b. he agreed to be and is named as the child’s father on the child’s birth certificate, or

c. he promised in a record to support the child as his own; or

5. For the first two (2) years of the child’s life, he resided in the same household with the child and openly held out the child as his own.

B. A presumption of paternity established under this section may be rebutted only by an adjudication under Article 6 of the Uniform Parentage Act.

You can proceed to disprove paternity by DNA testing, but even that is sometimes subject to some limitation.

For example, I have a client who while he was deployed overseas, the mother got a paralegal to file a divorce action against him claiming two children as being his, one not biologically his and not of the marriage. The client gets back from deployment and now has a child support award against him and proceeds to do nothing for several years. In Oklahoma, judgments can't be voided even if procured by fraud (so long as he was aware of it) after the statute of limitations runs.

He never received any information about the case because she served him by publishing notice in the Journal Record, but nevertheless he had actual notice when she told him about the papers upon his return. He further screwed his case up by remarrying, estopping him from doing anything to challenge the proceedings since he was availing himself of a benefit of being divorced (remarrying).

And you should see some of the freak shows in juvenile court. (can't really talk about it since those are sealed).

I digress, but the statute can end up naming gentlemen as the father even if they biologically aren't. And if they biologically are the father, our laws don't really adjust for same-sex parents.

[Soonerfan88]

I'm sure the lawyers will chime in here but I don't see how the state can win this in court. According to the article, the child was legally adopted by the lesbian parents. When has anyone ever been able to go back to the biological parents for anything after an adoption?

[badger]

our laws don't really adjust for same-sex parents.

Would legalizing same-sex marriage country-wide solve this legal issue, or just make the matter worse?

[badger]

I'm sure the lawyers will chime in here but I don't see how the state can win this in court. According to the article, the child was legally adopted by the lesbian parents. When has anyone ever been able to go back to the biological parents for anything after an adoption?
The state seems to think that the contract between the man and the two women is not binding on the state, just between them... kind of like when someone goes on Judge Judy to collect back rent on an extra apartment dweller, when said extra dweller wasn't on the apartment lease and shouldn't have even been living there. Not binding.

[LiveLaughLove]

If the guy doesn't live in Kansas, he should just do the L to the forehead thing, tell Kansas where to place it, and never go there. It's not like he would ever NEED to go there, ammiright?

I don't know, Obama or Holder would probably send the Mexican drug cartels with our guns after him.

Yeah, he probably should pay. If he's a white middle aged man, he deserves it anyway.

[Midtowner]

I'm sure the lawyers will chime in here but I don't see how the state can win this in court. According to the article, the child was legally adopted by the lesbian parents.

Yeah, but it doesn't clarify whether they properly terminated the biological father's rights. At least in Oklahoma, there are only a few ways to do that--if you're found to have sexually abused or committed some sort of really bad abuse, your rights can be terminated. We also routinely terminate parents who are addicts and cannot get back on the wagon or parents who are neglectful/mentally ill and either are terminated by jury or terminated after they fail to comply with a Plan given to them by the social worker or a lot of 'em just relinquish. That's one possible way here.

Another would be (and I do this every once in awhile) where the bio parent has nothing to do with the child and the other parent is married. If they've been married for a certain period of time (1.5 years if memory serves) and the other bio parent either consents or is found by clear and convincing evidence to have not paid child support for 12 of the last 14 months and doesn't have a substantial relationship with the child, that's another way.

So my guess is there's some sort of defect in the adoption process where his rights weren't terminated because none of the terminable scenarios really existed.

Yes, if we had statutes allowing for same-sex adoptions, that would probably get rid of some of the ambiguities created by not having them. I don't care where you are morally, you are ending up with dumb results in the law because our carmudgeons in office can't be bothered to acknowledge what is really happening out there.

[badger]

In other words, it's easier to dump your parental responsibilities than your student loans. Sad

[Soonerfan88]

Both women adopted the girl, although they had to file for adoption separately because the state does not recognize same-sex unions, the newspaper said.

They legally adopted the child. This should have nothing to do with biological parents or personal contracts. The state has already legally proclaimed the child theirs and removed him from the equation. Just because they split up and one is now medically unable to work and provide support shouldn't rescind the adoption.

Edit: Just read Mid's post. Bad to make assumptions since I have always assumed that if a child is adopted, the biological parent's rights are automatically terminated. Is this because it was two women who adopted so there is legally a father still on record?

[Midtowner]

If the guy doesn't live in Kansas, he should just do the L to the forehead thing, tell Kansas where to place it, and never go there. It's not like he would ever NEED to go there, ammiright?

I don't know, Obama or Holder would probably send the Mexican drug cartels with our guns after him.

Yeah, he probably should pay. If he's a white middle aged man, he deserves it anyway.

You are most certainly not right.

Jurisdiction and venue for a paternity action exist in the jurisdiction where the child is found. If Kansas has good service on the father, there's jurisdiction. He's, of course, free not to show up, where they'll enter an order requiring him to pay child support. They'd then proceed according to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act where they'd be able to motivate him to pay--take his tax refunds, garnish his paycheck and bank accounts, yank his driver's license, possible jail time, etc.

[Midtowner]

They legally adopted the child. This should have nothing to do with biological parents or personal contracts. The state has already legally proclaimed the child theirs and removed him from the equation. Just because they split up and one is now medically unable to work and provide support shouldn't rescind the adoption.

Think of it like a house.

If you buy a house from someone, you get a deed. The deed simultaneously severs title to the grantor and awards it to the grantee along with a bunch of warranties and whatnot.

Well, imagine if I sold you a house, but never gave you a quit claim deed, you just filed an instrument with the county clerk declaring that "Soonerfan88 owns this property."

Nothing ever severed my title, so I still have an interest in the property (which you can sue and get the court to compel me to get a deed to you on (so this isn't such a great analogy as I play it out), but you get the picture.

Adoption is a multistep process (at least in Oklahoma). First step, sever title to the other parent. Terminate their rights and duties. Then you have a best-interests hearing, then a final approval hearing where everything is made final. I don't really see Kansas' argument having any water unless there wasn't a way to properly terminate this guy's rights, or there was and they didn't.

[KantoSooner]

I would imagine that it is the action of a hyper zealous case worker who's decided, since the state is being asked to pay benefits, that he or she will sue anyone standing around and see if she can find alternative pockets.
It's a version of the game that big companies play - sue and then see how long the target's resources are going to last. Sometimes it's easier to settle than to lawyer up for the long haul.

[Midtowner]

I would imagine that it is the action of a hyper zealous case worker who's decided, since the state is being asked to pay benefits, that he or she will sue anyone standing around and see if she can find alternative pockets.
It's a version of the game that big companies play - sue and then see how long the target's resources are going to last. Sometimes it's easier to settle than to lawyer up for the long haul.

It's actually not within their discretion. When the couple split up, they applied for benefits--things like TANF, subsidized child care, etc., which can be taxable to the noncustodial parent. The statutes tell them that if there is an NCP out there, and it seems there may be here, he's going to be on the hook for some of that money owed to the state and of course, child support. These are sort of mechanical processes and it's so bad that in divorce court if any party has state benefits, DHS must send a lawyer to every hearing and must sign off on every order. It's an enormous PITA.

I doubt Kansas is much different in that regard since these are federally subsidized benefits.

Unfortunately, all of the journalists who have written about this are either skipping over the most interesting legal details or just don't know what's important. From what I have read, there's a contract between the women and the donor which states he can't be held financially responsible for the child.

Trouble is, when you are talking about Medicaid benefits, since the government wasn't a party to the contract (and never would be), it has no effect as to him. I read about the state seeking $5K in costs from the birth of the child, that's Medicaid costs and the father can beheld liable for that.

[KantoSooner]

So, in essence they've institutionalized what I described: sue everyone in the room and see what you can get.
Fair enough

[Midtowner]

So, in essence they've institutionalized what I described: sue everyone in the room and see what you can get.
Fair enough

When it's your tax dollars at work and we're trying to create a way least likely to screw the taxpayer, yep. Things do need to be tweaked to acknowledge the reality of same-sex households though.

[KantoSooner]

And probably carve out some exception for donors, surrogates, etc. If we legislatively see any societal value to that whole deal.

[Midtowner]

And probably carve out some exception for donors, surrogates, etc. If we legislatively see any societal value to that whole deal.

Yeah. Apparently in KS the way they do that is the state allows donor records to be kept in complete confidence, so even if federal rules applied, I guess the state confidentiality requirements would prevent them from being released.

[Midtowner]

So they did terminate his rights in the adoption process.. I'm actually offended at this. The State through its judge said he didn't have a duty to support the child. That should be case closed. People need to have some confidence in this process. I do plenty of parental rights terminations and many by agreement. This sort of thing could really sour things in that regard.

[soonercruiser]

So, today's "Fiscal Cliff" meeting headline should have read...
"Boehner tells Harry Reid to donate sperm".....to himself!
:surprise: