kallend 1,672 #1 January 23, 2014 www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/justice/kansas-sperm-donation/?sr=google_news&google_editors_picks=true... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,166 #2 January 23, 2014 Yep. That's just wrong. I can understand where the state comes in wanting to be reimbursed for its welfare expenses, but that's what the other mother is for in this case. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #3 January 23, 2014 I think that *most* guys would know better than to give their sperm to random strangers on the interwebsOwned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #4 January 23, 2014 Quotethat's what the other mother is for in this case. I very much agree with this.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #5 January 23, 2014 There was a thread here awhile back talking about being a sperm donor. I said at that time it was a pretty much a no-go situation because you can never know what foolishness could crop up later as a result of the recipient. Well, here we go. Perfect example.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #6 January 23, 2014 Quote I think that *most* guys would know better than to give their sperm to random strangers on the interwebs If that were so, craigslist would have folded years ago - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #7 January 23, 2014 wmw999Yep. That's just wrong. I can understand where the state comes in wanting to be reimbursed for its welfare expenses, but that's what the other mother is for in this case. Wendy P. Well, presumably only the birth mother would have any legal standing. The "other mother" is nothing more than a family friend as far as the state is concerned."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #8 January 23, 2014 QuoteWell, presumably only the birth mother would have any legal standing. The "other mother" is nothing more than a family friend as far as the state is concerned. I think that when a child is born, the person or 2 people who intend to "parent" the child should legally accept that responsibility. When shit goes south and only one of those people is actually doing the parenting, the other one is on the hook for child support.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #9 January 23, 2014 labrysQuoteWell, presumably only the birth mother would have any legal standing. The "other mother" is nothing more than a family friend as far as the state is concerned. I think that when a child is born, the person or 2 people who intend to "parent" the child should legally accept that responsibility. When shit goes south and only one of those people is actually doing the parenting, the other one is on the hook for child support. I agree with you in principle and that is great if the state has a mechanism for recognizing two parents of the same gender. Kansas (and a whole host of other states) do not. I honestly don't know how or if this issue is currently sorted out in states which have same-gendered marriage? I also don't know where that places the other "biological" parent in a situation like this."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #10 January 23, 2014 labrysI think that *most* guys would know better than to give their sperm to random strangers on the interwebs For sure. Guys have a well documented hesitance in departing with their sperm.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #11 January 23, 2014 Oh... and this: http://books.google.com/books/about/What_s_the_Matter_with_Kansas.html?id=AJKrMcOyQ3wCRemster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #12 January 23, 2014 QuoteI honestly don't know how or if this issue is currently sorted out in states which have same-gendered marriage? I don't know either, but given that more and more states are allowing same-sex marriage and adoption, they're going to need to sort it out.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #13 January 23, 2014 Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boogers 0 #14 January 23, 2014 labrys, but given that more and more states are allowing same-sex marriage and adoption, they're going to need to sort it out. Yep, an unintended consequence of the gay marriage movement... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #15 January 23, 2014 Boogers ***, but given that more and more states are allowing same-sex marriage and adoption, they're going to need to sort it out. Yep, an unintended consequence of the gay marriage movement... Yep.. Good thing as it will also protect sperm donors who donate to hetero couples. Thanks again, gays! Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #16 January 23, 2014 QuoteYep, an unintended consequence of the gay marriage movement... Gays have been trying to get parental rights legally sorted out for a very long time.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #17 January 23, 2014 QuoteBut under Kansas law, he is her father. Had a physician carried out the insemination, that would not be the case, because Marotta would be able to document that he was a sperm donor and not the lover of the girl's mother, CNN senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen said. "For all they know, they were lovers," she said. "They need that documentation. He's the dad..." IMPO, the court's ruling was legally correct; and if I was an appellate court judge, I would vote to sustain the ruling. See the language I highlighted in bold above. Ms. Cohen states the correct perspective of the law. Anyone versed in family law knows that "the best interests of the child" is the first and foremost consideration, before and above anything else. A child is legally entitled to support from his parents. The Kansas statute is designed to protect children from their parents trying to contract-away their legal obligation of support without adequate evidence. This is not, as the donor's lawyers capably argue, a mere case of the state relying on a narrow construction of semantics. It is a matter of a statutorily-prescribed minimum threshold of evidence (procedure performed & documented by a physician) to absolve the donor of his legal obligation of support; and that threshold is designed to protect the welfare of children who have no say in the deal. Thus, the statute really MUST be adhered to strictly. The court appropriately ruled as such. A cautionary tale indeed: do your homework first, and do things the right way, or bear the harsh consequences of your lack of due diligence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #18 January 23, 2014 kallend www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/justice/kansas-sperm-donation/?sr=google_news&google_editors_picks=true God that's ridiculous. Just another reason to never, ever participate in parenthood in any way for me.cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #19 January 23, 2014 Boogers***, but given that more and more states are allowing same-sex marriage and adoption, they're going to need to sort it out. Yep, an unintended consequence of the gay marriage movement... Since same sex marriage is not recognized in KS, and this couple was NOT married anyway, your statement is absurd and/or bigoted.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #20 January 23, 2014 labrysQuoteWell, presumably only the birth mother would have any legal standing. The "other mother" is nothing more than a family friend as far as the state is concerned. I think that when a child is born, the person or 2 people who intend to "parent" the child should legally accept that responsibility. When shit goes south and only one of those people is actually doing the parenting, the other one is on the hook for child support. Lol, look at you applying logic to a system where they legislate based on emotion.cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arvoitus 1 #21 January 24, 2014 quadeThere was a thread here awhile back talking about being a sperm donor. I said at that time it was a pretty much a no-go situation because you can never know what foolishness could crop up later as a result of the recipient. Well, here we go. Perfect example. There is no real threat if you do it through some official means like a sperm bank. If however you do amateurish shit like the guy in OP's article than you're just begging to be abused. Look at the lawyers post above mine.Your rights end where my feelings begin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 187 #22 January 24, 2014 labrysQuoteYep, an unintended consequence of the gay marriage movement... Gays have been trying to get parental rights legally sorted out for a very long time. Take heart - breeders are not doing much better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bakerjan 0 #23 January 24, 2014 wmw999Yep. That's just wrong. I can understand where the state comes in wanting to be reimbursed for its welfare expenses, but that's what the other mother is for in this case. Wendy P. The judge is probably a lesbian too, they always want to make men pay, they don't like women so much as they hate men. Jan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weekender 0 #24 January 24, 2014 Andy9o8QuoteBut under Kansas law, he is her father. Had a physician carried out the insemination, that would not be the case, because Marotta would be able to document that he was a sperm donor and not the lover of the girl's mother, CNN senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen said. "For all they know, they were lovers," she said. "They need that documentation. He's the dad..." IMPO, the court's ruling was legally correct; and if I was an appellate court judge, I would vote to sustain the ruling. See the language I highlighted in bold above. Ms. Cohen states the correct perspective of the law. Anyone versed in family law knows that "the best interests of the child" is the first and foremost consideration, before and above anything else. A child is legally entitled to support from his parents. The Kansas statute is designed to protect children from their parents trying to contract-away their legal obligation of support without adequate evidence. This is not, as the donor's lawyers capably argue, a mere case of the state relying on a narrow construction of semantics. It is a matter of a statutorily-prescribed minimum threshold of evidence (procedure performed & documented by a physician) to absolve the donor of his legal obligation of support; and that threshold is designed to protect the welfare of children who have no say in the deal. Thus, the statute really MUST be adhered to strictly. The court appropriately ruled as such. A cautionary tale indeed: do your homework first, and do things the right way, or bear the harsh consequences of your lack of due diligence. worded far better than i could have. thanks. that is what i read. he did not follow the law. amazing he would do something with such huge implications and not bother to properly research it. he is a dolt and suffering the consequences of said doltism. the OP was right. a cautionary tale. when creating a baby, you should give it some thought."The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #25 January 24, 2014 labrysQuoteI honestly don't know how or if this issue is currently sorted out in states which have same-gendered marriage? I don't know either, but given that more and more states are allowing same-sex marriage and adoption, they're going to need to sort it out. Interesting at least some states are giving presumption of parenthood to married gay couples: http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/gartner-v-newton In CA one case has led the state to allow more than two parents: http://verdict.justia.com/2013/10/15/california-allows-children-two-legal-parents A little googling was a dangerous thing here, as the state of the law appears really confused right now."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
