Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Court Says Craigslist Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support

samzenpus posted about 6 months ago | from the pay-up dept.

The Courts 644

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "David Stout reports at Time Magazine that what began with a Craigslist ad from a lesbian couple calling for a sperm donor in rural Topeka, Kansas ended in court on Wednesday with a judge ordering the sperm donor to pay child support. The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in October 2012 seeking to have William Marotta declared the father of a child born to Jennifer Schreiner in 2009 so he can be held responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance the state provided, as well as future child support. 'In this case, quite simply, the parties failed to perform to statutory requirement of the Kansas Parentage Act in not enlisting a licensed physician at some point in the artificial insemination process, and the parties' self-designation of (Marotta) as a sperm donor is insufficient to relieve (Marotta) of parental right and responsibilities to the child,' wrote Judge Mattivi. Marotta opposed that action, saying he had contacted Schreiner and her partner at the time, Angela Bauer, in response to an ad they placed on Craigslist seeking a sperm donor and signed a contract waiving his parental rights and responsibilities. 'We stand by that contract,' says Defense attorney Swinnen adding that the Kansas statute doesn't specifically require the artificial insemination be carried out by a physician. 'The insinuation is offensive, and we are responding vigorously to that. We stand by our story. There was no personal relationship whatsoever between my client and the mother, or the partner of the mother, or the child. Anything the state insinuates is vilifying my client, and I will address it.'"

cancel ×

644 comments

Men must pay (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054647)

Serves him right. Helping lesbians and having a child has consequences - for life. This is a just sentence. Men must pay.

first post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054649)

see subj.

Re:first post (-1, Offtopic)

Joce640k (829181) | about 6 months ago | (#46054685)

Do you feel like a loser yet?

Re:first post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054701)

Damn, what a failure. You won't even get a Taco Cowboy remora post out of this debacle—he will bootstrap his karma whoring using some other poster now.

What would your mother think if she knew?

This is nerd news? How so? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055125)

O, it's another nose picker blog post redu.

Dont do anyone any favors (1, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 6 months ago | (#46054655)

Selfish dykes ruining shit for the rest of the lesbians...

First of all, if you need public assistance then maybe you shouldn't be having children. Second of all, if you cannot have children in a normal way then maybe you shouldn't be fucking over the people that help you have one in an abnormal way. Thirdly, fuck everyone involved for going to craigslist for this shit. What. The. Fuck.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (5, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | about 6 months ago | (#46054669)

I don't think you can blame the parents for "fucking over" the donor: it's the Kansas Department for Children and Families that has brought the case, and the recipients of the funds may not have a say in the matter.

Unfortunately decades of trying to get deadbeats to pay up means that the laws are very strict, and you are correct that everyone involved was stupid for thinking they could just throw together their own contract without bothering to check their state's laws on the subject.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054691)

.... and you are correct that everyone involved was stupid for thinking they could just throw together their own contract without bothering to check their state's laws on the subject.

This is what's wrong with the legal system in my opinion. Intent means nothing these days. Crossing your T's and dotting your I's is all that matters...

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (4, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | about 6 months ago | (#46054723)

Like I say, years of "Oh, I meant to do that" from people who had no intention of doing so has made it all but impossible to get any leeway. If you give people an inch and they take a mile, that inch gets taken away again.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054843)

Sounds like there was plenty of correctly-marked letters. Quite simply, the State decided that the defendant owed the State money, sued, and then ruled in its own favor.

Contracts waiving parental rights and responsibilities are commonplace and well-supported by law. If one truly exists here, and it's legitimate, then the judge screwed up.

Re: Dont do anyone any favors (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055105)

Parental responsibilities are owed to a child and cannot be waived by a parent.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055067)

Intent only means something if the cops and courts decide you had an intent to harm them.

Rememeber that cops and courts are above the law, and are afforded special protections.

For example, if you stare at a cop for 5 seconds which results in them feeling intimidated, there is sufficient intent to harm the cop in this case that they may fire shots at you and then arrest your body.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055103)

I have no problem with this story. Two people who could not afford to raise a child went out of their way to have a child anyway, expecting taxpayers to pay to raise that child. In a word, "NO".

Keep in mind, this was no accident, alcohol-induced or otherwise. They had to deliberately work at this. You talk about intent. Their intent was to get what they want and force ME to pay for it. In a word, "NO".

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (5, Insightful)

Brian (2887359) | about 6 months ago | (#46055161)

sure, but why should the donor pay for it?

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (-1, Troll)

trout007 (975317) | about 6 months ago | (#46054719)

Right. The moms were just trying to take from other people.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about 6 months ago | (#46054771)

Given the amounts involved (it averages $100 per month) it might be that they assumed it was some blanket program. Some of it might be the state reclaiming money from blanket programs for everyone under a certain income threshold, things like free shots. It's not obvious.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054755)

I don't think you can blame the parents for "fucking over" the donor: it's the Kansas Department for Children and Families that has brought the case, and the recipients of the funds may not have a say in the matter.

They should have gone with the virgin Mary story and said that God was the father of the child.

What we should take from this is that it isn't wrong to help a lesbian couple out with getting a child but avoid giving them your name and home address.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054797)

Strict??? BS! Maybe for the people they know who will pay... I could get behind one payment and they'd be calling making threats - suspend license - 30 days in the slammer... Yet, I've known several deadbeat dads in my life who never paid a dime and never go to jail.

This is just BIG G trying to make more money, please don't mistake that they actually give a crap about you or anyone else in this country - child or not.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (3, Interesting)

gsslay (807818) | about 6 months ago | (#46054805)

You can totally blame the parents. What is this "$6,000 in assistance"? If these are benefits over and above what all parents are entitled to, why are the parents planning children that they are not financially able to support?

You can't say this was an accidental pregnancy. They effectively devised a plan that said; we'll go to some lengths to create a child, and the state will pay for it because we can't. If this wasn't a donor situation then, of course, the state would go hunting for the father's money. So why should this be different? The state was not party to any legal arrangement they had between themselves. Like it or not, he was complicit in the plan.

The only fault the donor made is in not ensuring the couple wanting the child could support it.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (4, Interesting)

Your.Master (1088569) | about 6 months ago | (#46054883)

The kid has two parents, so you could get the mother's partner to pay up rather than the father. The other woman explicitly chose to be a parent, thus the burden should be her responsibility. Why aren't they? Perhaps because this guy has more income so he's the guy they can extract money from, or perhaps they just think the law is written heteronormatively enough that this will work better.

I don't know the breakdown of $6000 of assistance but I wouldn't just assume that's over and above what another parent might get without more information, since there are numerous tax effects of having a kid. I'm not assuming the other way either. It's just really hard to infer from no information whatsoever.

Note that the state doesn't stop the extremely poor from having a kid together, and then target the midwife for child support payments. Why should this be any different? There were two parents signed up. If the state doesn't like the poor having kids, maybe the state can consider a solution that affects all poor people having kids (it's easy to imagine that going wrong, but it's an option).

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 6 months ago | (#46054993)

It seems like her relationship with her partner broke down. Sounds like they were fine when she got pregnant but subsequently things went wrong. It happens, and if the law was sensible it would hold her partner responsible for the child rather than the biological father. After all, they decided to have a child together as the two parents, on the basis of them both being able to care for and support it.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (5, Insightful)

stinerman (812158) | about 6 months ago | (#46055015)

Yeah, but that would mean that Kansas would have to admit that lesbians are people with equal rights and responsibilities. Not likely.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (1)

Killjoy_NL (719667) | about 6 months ago | (#46055151)

God damn insightful good sir

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about 6 months ago | (#46054885)

I don't think you can blame the parents for "fucking over" the donor: it's the Kansas Department for Children and Families that has brought the case, and the recipients of the funds may not have a say in the matter.

illness.
2. The custodial parent at that point applied for state benefits. During this the state hounded her into giving up the father's name.
3. Seeking to recover benefits, the Kansas Department sued to have him declared the father and require child support payments, noting that they paid $189 in cash benefits and 'over $6k' in medical. [kansascity.com]

The way this goes, the Department of Department of Children and Families will get all the money until the ~$6200 is recovered. The woman, as custodial parent of the child, won't see a cent of it until then.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (4, Informative)

Firethorn (177587) | about 6 months ago | (#46054891)

Screwed that up. Somehow the first part of my post was eaten.

For those that haven't researched the case, besides it being the State of Kansas suing, not the lesbians, they won't even see any money from the man even if the state wins, as the money will go to the state to repay the benefits given to the child.

Also, the couple was fine until they seperated(divorce anyone?) and one lost her job due to illness. [cnn.com]

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (4, Insightful)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 6 months ago | (#46055019)

Actually you can blame them. They didn't have to tell anyone his name. They could have said "we don't know"... they chose to name him. And in naming him, they screwed him.

As to the government, they really don't amend their laws to take new circumstances into consideration. This whole sperm donor thing is not something the law understands at a deep level.

Should the judge be holding this guy accountable? Obviously not. But at some level it might not be entirely his fault since that might just be how the law is written and it isn't his job to say which laws are and are not reasonable. Rather, it is his job to judge how specific circumstances interact with the law.

In any case, let this be a lesson to men in general. Don't donate your sperm to two crazy girls over the internet.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (2, Interesting)

tempmpi (233132) | about 6 months ago | (#46055079)

I don't think you can blame the parents for "fucking over" the donor: it's the Kansas Department for Children and Families that has brought the case, and the recipients of the funds may not have a say in the matter.

And the Kansas Department for Children and Families is completely right about this: Two persons cannot make any contract or agreement that takes away the rights of a third person. It is the right of the child to get support from his biological parents. The mother cannot decide that the child should not exercise this right. Even as a legal guardian of the child she can only make decisions for the child that are in the interest of the child. But not getting support from the child's farther is in the interest of the mother but not in the interest of the child.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (5, Informative)

onyxruby (118189) | about 6 months ago | (#46055133)

A woman can still get benefits without naming the possible dad. My ex did it with the kid she had before she met me and she was far from alone. The mother chose to name the Dad because then she gets benefits and child support. She's letting the state be the bad guy to keep the blame off of her for her own greed. Quit making excuses for others malicious behavior.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 6 months ago | (#46054673)

Selfish dykes ruining shit for the rest of the lesbians...

From the summary: "The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in October 2012 seeking to have William Marotta declared the father of a child born to Jennifer Schreiner in 2009 so he can be held responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance the state provided"

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (-1, Troll)

DarkOx (621550) | about 6 months ago | (#46054705)

Right what we have here is an example of the moral hazard public assistance creates.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054871)

Uh, truth is not a synonym for troll. Don't like the truth? Kill yourself.

Re: Dont do anyone any favors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054873)

No, what we have here is an example of the hazard overly harsh laws regarding child support and the vindictive need to have a man pay creates. In this case it's the state doing so, aided no doubt by laws passed by conservatives to attack and weaken public assistance as always. I'm sure in conservative Kansas that such programs are underfunded, since the right doesn't give a crap about kids after they're born, and this is their alleged solution to a problem they created in the first place.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (1)

crossmr (957846) | about 6 months ago | (#46054821)

Maybe the poster knows something we don't. maybe the person who made the decision in the Kansas Department for Children and Families is a lesbian.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (-1, Flamebait)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 6 months ago | (#46054849)

None of which would have happened if the child had been properly provided for, which it wasn't. Fuck the couple. They're trash.

Re: Dont do anyone any favors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054857)

She only wanted the kid for the public assistance anyway.... Freaking system abusers

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (-1, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 6 months ago | (#46054915)

Selfish dykes ruining shit for the rest of the lesbians...

From the summary: "The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in October 2012 seeking to have William Marotta declared the father of a child born to Jennifer Schreiner in 2009 so he can be held responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance the state provided"

Yes, it's selfish to have a child that you can't pay for. Try a dictionary.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 6 months ago | (#46055001)

The law needs updating to cover same sex couples. If they decided to have a child together it shouldn't matter that they were unable to provide the sperm themselves, the responsibility for the child is still theirs.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 6 months ago | (#46055073)

The law needs updating to cover same sex couples. If they decided to have a child together it shouldn't matter that they were unable to provide the sperm themselves, the responsibility for the child is still theirs.

They've already updated the law to reflect that. Part of their law is involving a licensed physician somehow; you can't just decide that you'll raise children as a couple, you have to seek approval. Since they did not follow the prescribed legal process in their state, the responsible parents of record are not the parties that they wanted them to be. In a state with such a thing as government assistance and moreover responsibility, it is infeasible for the state to not be involved when a child is born. They could have chosen to move to another country with less relevant laws before having the child, but it's hard to find one of those which respects homosexuals. Perhaps they should have either followed the law, or petitioned to have it changed.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (4, Interesting)

LordLucless (582312) | about 6 months ago | (#46054681)

Second of all, if you cannot have children in a normal way then maybe you shouldn't be fucking over the people that help you have one in an abnormal way.

While I broadly agree, it doesn't appear the lesbian couple actually asked for the guy to pay child support; that was all on the state's initiative.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054745)

So, if the couple never asked for the money and they don't want it, they could still pay the guy back, why not.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 6 months ago | (#46054795)

No, because it's the state that wants the money, and the state won't pay him back.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054833)

Understood, however the mothers could reach a private agreement with the father such that the mothers agree to pay to the father the amount that he is required to pay to the state, assuming they agree that the father should not suffer the financial burden of paying support for a child he is not raising.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055023)

ROFLMFAO. Which state/country did this occur in? You seriously expect that to happen in one of the most litigious countries on Earth? Where most people are just as happy to screw over the next person, as long as it gets them ahead?

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 6 months ago | (#46054837)

But the couple can pay him back.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about 6 months ago | (#46054899)

They had to request state assistance, which caused this mess in the first place. Who says they have the money to pay him back?

Though him suing them for violation of the contract might be interesting.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 6 months ago | (#46054921)

Though him suing them for violation of the contract might be interesting.

Not for breach of contract, but simply a suit in civil court for damages. If they couldn't afford to raise their child, though, will they be able to afford to pay the judgment? My sources say no. Odds are they have nothing worth seizing. The guy will still be on the hook for the money. It's a good time to move to another country, if you were thinking about it anyway. Say, Chile.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about 6 months ago | (#46054979)

If they couldn't afford to raise their child, though, will they be able to afford to pay the judgment? My sources say no.

First line of my post.

Which is why I said 'interesting', from a legal standpoint, not profitable.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 6 months ago | (#46055033)

Well, you and I have different definitions of "interesting". I don't include "fat fucking waste of time" except for slashdot

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (1)

is not primary (2645335) | about 6 months ago | (#46054803)

Having skimmed the article and knowing little about law in the USA I'm not sure who the money is going to. The state or the couple. Or if the couple will lose out on other support but it does seem like a way of making this situation a little bit more sensible

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (1)

ihtoit (3393327) | about 6 months ago | (#46054893)

The couple have already had the money, the State are clawing it back from him.

This is really nothing more than a CSA claim gone by the book, based on the assumption that the waiver he signed isn't worth the paper it was written on, and the Department have gone with it and designated him an absent, deadbeat father.

Rightly or wrongly. My personal opinion on the matter is as irrelevant as it is ill-informed on the nuances of Kansas State law.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (2)

will_die (586523) | about 6 months ago | (#46054767)

They did not ask him however the state was asked for support and money from the state; beyond those given to anyone filing taxes. The state is going after the father to collect the money they paid out.

Child support money (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about 6 months ago | (#46054907)

In this case it'll go to the state to repay the benefits they paid out for the child. Even after that they'll take a cut for 'managing' the payments.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (5, Insightful)

TitusC3v5 (608284) | about 6 months ago | (#46054787)

While I broadly agree, it doesn't appear the lesbian couple actually asked for the guy to pay child support; that was all on the state's initiative.

Citing the above, since it's very relevant. The issue here is it's a government agency abusing a loophole (well, not really a loophole since it's intended, I suppose) to get paid back for $6000 in state services. They've essentially gotten a two for one deal - not only do they get reimbursed for the matter, but they also managed to set a nice little precedent for future cases like this.

In short, make sure the blame stays on the Kansas Department for Children and Families.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (0)

mysidia (191772) | about 6 months ago | (#46055063)

In short, make sure the blame stays on the Kansas Department for Children and Families.

Actually... I first blame the sperm donor, for not making sure the couple the sperm was being donated to, had the proper means, financial resources, and responsibility raise a child.

AND the couple for applying for public assistance/welfare after artificial insemination, WTF?

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 6 months ago | (#46054689)

$100 per month (child born in 2009) probably doesn't mean they "need public assistance".

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054819)

Then why did they claim it.... causing the state to go after the "father".

This is a perfect example of why men are treated as nothing but servants in our society... providers to be soaked of resources if not directly by women in relationships, then by proxy via the state.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054863)

Okay first of all, fuck you.

Second, it's the state that fucked this couple and their friend over. If Kansas weren't such a homophobic shithole, largely because of homophobic shitbags like you, then it wouldn't have a problem with accepting the couple as their child's legal guardians, instead of trying to force child support out of the donor.

Re:Dont do anyone any favors (3, Insightful)

the grace of R'hllor (530051) | about 6 months ago | (#46054929)

First of all, the extreme wealth inequality in your country means that 46 million people are living in poverty. People are using food stamps for fuck's sake, and it's not even actual war time. Using money as a reason to not live a life is hardly realistic.

Second of all, as far as I can tell the parents aren't the ones fucking over the donor, it's the state of Kansas.

Thirdly... I got nothing, you're right on that one.

Someone is going to pay one way or another. (-1)

trout007 (975317) | about 6 months ago | (#46054677)

Might as well be the kids father.

Who chose to pursue this case? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054697)

Let's be a trifle more charitable here.
It seems as though the state pursued this case off it's own bat. If you'd fallen on hard times and the state told you to name the father of your child or potentially not eat and have that child taken away from you, what would you do? The state is overreaching here, and it may well not be the mother's fault she's fallen on hard times. It can happen to anyone, through illness, divorce, sudden unemployment. The idea that all people who need state support are mere leeches is a poisonous stereotype perpetuated to justify the laissez-faire, let 'em starve approach taken by money-minded politicians and their aparatchiks.

Re:Who chose to pursue this case? (5, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | about 6 months ago | (#46054809)

I was almost victim of the vicious child support system. It's damned ridiculous. It has gotten to the point that everyone is better off avoiding anything going into public record. It's basically too late to say that though.

My ex-wife was illegally claiming my sons when collecting welfare in California. She apparently didn't need to present anything more than their social security numbers because she filed and started getting money. Meanwhile, the state tracked me down in my home state and contacted their child support services office to start extracting money from my pay.

There was just one problem. I had my sons with me and had them for quite some time. I contacted my state's office and they said there was nothing they could do. I have the children in question. One would think this is a slam-dunk. No. I requested they contact the school they were enrolled in to confirm they were with me. She wouldn't do it. It's not her job to validate -- just to do things to people. So I ended up taking the kids from school with copies of all the records I could collect and went down to her office in person. What could have been resolved with a phone call and some faxes had to be done at the inconvenience of my sons and a day's pay from me because I had to take the day off of work to resolve it.

It was resolved. But it was stupid. What people can do without proof has to be fought and even lost with insurmountable evidence to the contrary. There are cases where a person was charged with paternity, proven he wasn't the father and still shackled with child support. Why? Because he spent time with the mother and the child. That goes beyond reason. They've got it both ways. It's biology. It's relationships.

So take it from me and every sad case out there. If you see a single mother, stay the hell away from her. She's a disease. I know that sounds completely awful and it is. But the system was built this way and single mothers take advantage of it far too often. Fathers are guilty until proven innocent and many are still punished afterward. Women are never held accountable for their actions and no one can expect otherwise. The only reasonable way to protect is to treat them as if they were a contagion. The situation is dangerous. Purely dangerous. And the greater the danger, the more extreme the measures one must take to protect one's self.

Sorry ladies... sorry kids. Blame the system and stop using it. If you want to depend on a man to take care of you and your children? How about taking care of him in return and making a family? Also, how about selecting a good man instead of "an exciting one" and being a good person yourself. I know it sounds stupidly old fashioned and somehow out of date, but there is a reason those ancient ideals were formed in ages past and the reasons they were needed then are the same as the reaons they are needed today.

I was lucky. The game didn't quite work in their case though I am sure if they tried to press it, it would have worked anyway. My eyes were opened to the situations out there and they are huge and tragic. Don't let labels like "deadbeat dad" fool you. Women are not innocent in any of this. They hold the control and the leverage and will use it when it suits them.

Re:Who chose to pursue this case? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055127)

So take it from me and every sad case out there. If you see a single mother, stay the hell away from her. She's a disease. I know that sounds completely awful and it is. But the system was built this way and single mothers take advantage of it far too often. Fathers are guilty until proven innocent and many are still punished afterward. Women are never held accountable for their actions and no one can expect otherwise. The only reasonable way to protect is to treat them as if they were a contagion. The situation is dangerous. Purely dangerous. And the greater the danger, the more extreme the measures one must take to protect one's self.

Sorry ladies... sorry kids. Blame the system and stop using it. If you want to depend on a man to take care of you and your children? How about taking care of him in return and making a family? Also, how about selecting a good man instead of "an exciting one" and being a good person yourself. I know it sounds stupidly old fashioned and somehow out of date, but there is a reason those ancient ideals were formed in ages past and the reasons they were needed then are the same as the reaons they are needed today.

I have found that this is the unspoken philosophy of every intelligent male I have ever encountered. However, speaking this opinion brands you as a misogynist in the eyes of most women and some unintelligent males.

Re:Who chose to pursue this case? (5, Insightful)

onyxruby (118189) | about 6 months ago | (#46055097)

Get real, mothers tell the state that they don't know who the possible father is every day. You have obviously never looked at how the process works. The mother could have avoided the entire situation by declining to name the man, and still gotten the benefits.

She chose to name the man and is letting the state of Kansas play the bad guy for her own benefit. She used him to get what she was otherwise unwilling to do and has now burned the guy that naively helped out a lesbian couple without having a lawyer on board.

Quit calling a spade a duck and offering an excuse for her abominable behavior.

Getting screwed by a handjob... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054717)

Sucks to be him...

let this be a lesson to men everywhere (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054731)

Never ejaculate anywhere near America.

Re:let this be a lesson to men everywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054881)

Never ejaculate anywhere near America.

Or Kansas!

Re:let this be a lesson to men everywhere (0)

ImOuttaHere (2996813) | about 6 months ago | (#46054909)

Never ejaculate anywhere near America.

Amen to that.

Re:let this be a lesson to men everywhere (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 6 months ago | (#46055039)

That's going straight into my fortune file.

Re:let this be a lesson to men everywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055095)

Sounds reasonable. Shouldn't be too hard, as I already follow the rule: "Try to stay away from America, their officials, soldiers, TSA, politicians, laws and lawyers."

I'm sorry to say, but you are a damn poisonous.

I don't get sperm donation (2, Interesting)

RR (64484) | about 6 months ago | (#46054735)

On the one hand, I think it would be neat to make money by self-pleasure. On the other hand, I feel that sperm donation is a bit icky.

On a genetic level, it's little different than offering your kid for adoption. Actually, it's about half your kid. If you have fashionable features, it's a good way to spread your genes to the next generation.

On a social level, it's basically making babies without parental responsibility, and without the fun of sex or the possibility of venereal disease. I don't see how you could in good conscience make babies with the intent of selling them off. Furthermore, fashionable sperm donors sometimes become the genetic fathers of many, many children. Sometimes the children start dating without knowing that they're genetic half-siblings.

Increasingly, medicine is benefiting from family history tracking. Education benefits from parental involvement. A sperm donor would be depriving the children of those useful resources.

Re:I don't get sperm donation (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 6 months ago | (#46054811)

I always have to use both hands.

Re:I don't get sperm donation (5, Funny)

arse maker (1058608) | about 6 months ago | (#46054831)

I don't get sperm donation

On the one hand

Re:I don't get sperm donation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054861)

Sometimes the children start dating without knowing that they're genetic half-siblings.

Can someone who has a deeper knowledge of genetics fill me in on the problems here?
In this case the half siblings have different mothers but the same father. Assuming that the siblings are of different gender that means that one of them got the X-chromosome from the father and the other got the Y-chromosome.
Doesn't that pretty much guarantee that inbreeding won't be an issue as long as the mothers aren't related?

Re:I don't get sperm donation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054895)

But from each of the other 22 pairs of chromosomes, the opposite sex half siblings have a 50% chance of getting the same chromosome from the father.

Re:I don't get sperm donation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054935)

Inbreeding isn't nearly as dangerous as it is made up to be, do if for generations and sure it can go terrible wrong
but lets assume siblings have kids and it doubles the risk of genetic diseases, if it was 1% it is now 2%

Many countries have limits on how many children a donor can father, either a fixed limit of say 10 or a limit based on population
and I believe donors are screened for most genetic diseases

So a single event of a couple fathered by the same donor having children isn't very dangerous and the chance of them meeting in the first place is very small

Re:I don't get sperm donation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055059)

Inbreeding done right. I know it's not the same but I used to breed dogs and inbreading was the norm. Say you have a grand champion male. Breed it with a sutable female. Choose one of the female pups and breed it with Dad. Choose one of the female pups. Breed it with Dad again. Do this until Dad dies. Discontinue all breeding. Never had a problem.

Re:I don't get sperm donation (3, Insightful)

ihtoit (3393327) | about 6 months ago | (#46054937)

no, it is a real problem whether they're paternal or maternal half-siblings. Maternal half siblings share a higher risk of autistic spectrum disorders than paternal ones, while the risk for full siblings (it has happened, and very recently in England) is orders of magnitude higher. The risk is vastly increased of various genetic disorders, miscarriages etc., in cases where full siblings are separated and forcibly adopted, in which cases their early life records are erased or substituted to make it harder for them to find their biological families.

Lesson: in the slightest issue of doubt, get a DNA profile done. Failure to do so when there is a question of parentage can bring serious even tragic consequences.

Complications of Inbreed (1)

gd2shoe (747932) | about 6 months ago | (#46055061)

No.

(IANAG)

Each child receives 23 chromosomes from his/her mother, and 23 chromosomes from his/her father. Two of those are XX or XY. As far as inbreeding is concerned, the remaining 44 chromosomes also matter. Half-siblings share about a quarter of their chromosomes (on average). If they're of opposite genders, then it's just under a quarter.

To be clear, the real problem with inbreeding isn't that it causes bad genetic mutations, but that it brings them to the surface. Horrific genetic disorders that are dominant don't tend to propagate. They (or their kids) don't tend to survive to maturity and/or have trouble finding mates. Recessive disorders, however, lurk all over the place. I don't know if it's true or not, but I heard a professor say at one point that each of us carries about 3 major genetic disorders. They're not a problem because they're recessive. They're wide, and varied, so the chance that two carriers of the same disorder marry is pretty small (but does happen). Enter in-breeding into the equation. Suddenly there's a much higher chance that two carriers of the same disorder will marry, and some of their children may have major medical complications. (The same principle applies to minor genetic problems too.)

Animal husbandry often uses inbreeding intentionally to remove recessive genetic defects. They do so at the risk of getting very ill offspring... intentionally to weed them out. This does tend to lead toward a genetically homogeneous population, and therefore slows the rate of evolution. So, it's a trade off.

So is it good or bad for humans? I don't know. In the short term, it can be very, very bad. In the long term, we are probably benefiting from the added genetic diversity. Inbreeding might remove some of that. I'm going to tentatively say that we should probably avoid it.

(Not being a professional in this field, I am almost certainly missing something.)

Re:I don't get sperm donation (2)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 6 months ago | (#46054965)

Furthermore, fashionable sperm donors sometimes become the genetic fathers of many, many children. Sometimes the children start dating without knowing that they're genetic half-siblings.

That's normal in iceland:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/busines... [www.cbc.ca]

Re:I don't get sperm donation (2)

Threni (635302) | about 6 months ago | (#46054973)

Morally, it's like giving blood. If someone you gave blood to committed a crime, would you be responsible? Of course not.

In the UK, people have the right to contact their (sperm donor) parent. Why? It's just going to upset the child:

*knock knock*
Guy: "Uh..hello?"
Child: "I'm your son!"
Guy: "Is this a joke? My son's at school. Go away or I'm calling the police"
Child: "No, you donated sperm 15 years ago. Look, here's the document"
Guy: "I don't care about all that - I was a student, I needed the money. You don't mean anything to me...It's unlikely but possible I could have 20,000 "children". Only, of course, I don't. Now go away."

6 foot plus with a masters degree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055003)

Just look at what those women are looking for. They want a father who's six foot plus, has advanced college degrees and other criteria that can be hard to find in a bar, dating service or just around. Because yeah, if a woman - any woman - wanted to get pregnant, all she's have to do is walk into a bar at 1AM and grab the nearest guy by the crotch and just say "Let's go!".

A woman can walk into a bar and get any man she wants. A man walks into a bar and gets any woman he can get. - Richard Lewis.

Go to a sperm bank and ask.

Re:I don't get sperm donation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055131)

... sperm donation is a bit icky.

You're doing it anyway, why not get paid and foolishly think you're solving somebody's problem. As this case reveals, sperm donation makes the man vulnerable to the courts.

... making babies without parental responsibility ...

What about the woman who had a child she couldn't afford? She chose to fuck, chose to avoid contraception, chose to keep the pregnancy, chose custody of the baby: But it's alright, everyone can ignore that because she chose to live with her mistake. This is female chauvinism. Yes, the man chose to not use a condom but he's paying for his mistakes and hers.

This could be a huge charge on him (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 6 months ago | (#46054783)

It will start at $100 a month - but what happens if the kid goes to University or gets sick. he could be bankrupted.

Re:This could be a huge charge on him (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054815)

Ignorantia legis neminem excusat
Clearly he should have thought about that before he donated sperm in Kansas...

Stupid. Regulation seems to at the point that you need to employ a lawyer to follow you every time you step outside these days :/

 

Re:This could be a huge charge on him (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054855)

Don't worry, there are plenty of indoor crimes you can be charged with too.

Re:This could be a huge charge on him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054835)

They don't care about the fallout they just want their case wins and $$$ by any means. No one with any conscience or common sense pursues cases like these.

Moral of story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054785)

Keep it in your draft folder!

Make no mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46054813)

If the couple isn't involved, then adopt..

Yeah, that's right - you know they want that money..

War on Women! (5, Insightful)

dfenstrate (202098) | about 6 months ago | (#46054889)

This case will make it that much harder for lesbian couples to obtain a sperm donor. Like many laws and regulations, it'll ensure that things only occur when the proper people (in this case fertility clinics) get their cut.

WTF? (0)

csumpi (2258986) | about 6 months ago | (#46054985)

War on Women!

Fugg you for even suggesting that. War on women?

So let's see, we have a kid whom nobody wants, moms took off, biological "dad" wants no piece of it, nor the state, and this is somehow about war on women?

Bring it on, I got karma to burn.

.

Re:WTF? (1)

Threni (635302) | about 6 months ago | (#46055077)

Because the pointless paperwork will do nothing to make a couple stick together/protect the "unwanted" child; it just ensures work/money for suits all the way down from doctors to politicians.

Re:War on Women! (1)

InfiniteLoopCounter (1355173) | about 6 months ago | (#46055157)

Seriously? A "war on women!"? I know this is /. but have you even skimmed the article summary?

Only in Kansas... (0)

ImOuttaHere (2996813) | about 6 months ago | (#46054903)

[shaking my head] In a country of "believers" and "Gawd and Taliban fearing people", Kansas takes Pride of Fools Place.

Ain't it beautiful ? (1)

vikingpower (768921) | about 6 months ago | (#46054981)

The law prevents these people from agreeing upon a contract and then carrying it out, even if the contract broke no other law.... Gotta love the arcana of law.

Re:Ain't it beautiful ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055107)

The contract has no bindings on the government as it wasn't a party in it.

Victim Of Financial Rape (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055005)

He should enter a delayed (financial) rape claim. He was financially coerced into it, yeronner! They forced it on him! He was emotionally fragile and suggestionable, and was induced by bad advice, slick marketing, and glitzy décor.
Reason enough to start a crowdfunding campaign? Or, does that sound too much like what the banks do?

On the other ... er, on the "bright" side, he won't be getting sued over the ones raised as organ donors. Unless someone sues for "product liability", of course. How does a "recall" work, under those conditions? Oh, wait, yes. Of course. That could *never* happen! Just me being totally paranoid again, that's all. Of course, Shirley.

And yes, the real victims are the children being dragged through this. Being alive has its perks and high points. I trust a lot of them get the love and support every child needs from its "everyday" parents.

DONOR , donation....charity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055007)

um like what a f.uck.ed up ruling

the usa is screwed now ...no one is gonna donate period and your all gonna japanese yourselves to nothing

America is a pretty fucked up place.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055109)

I'm glad I left and its power is declining. This is retarded on pretty much any level

Re:America is a pretty fucked up place.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46055119)

I'm glad I left and its power is declining. This is retarded on pretty much any level

So much BULLSHIT, USA leads the world in EVERYTHING

Re:America is a pretty fucked up place.. (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 6 months ago | (#46055159)

I'm glad I left and its power is declining. This is retarded on pretty much any level

So much BULLSHIT, USA leads the world in EVERYTHING

Specially the BULLSHIT

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...