I bought a canoe off of Craiglist once. Smooth transaction. Almost bought a drum kit.
Ross Perot so aptly said, "If a man's wife can't trust him, how am I going to trust him?" or something to that effect. It is pure logic what has been stated above, but an immoral leftist will deny it every time. Liberal lefty philosophy kills.
That's where he messed up. Should have had a licensed physician inseminate her. Then, the doctor could have paid the child support. Wait, I'm getting confused....oh, yes, artificial. But, wait, if you're having sex with a lesbian, isn't that "artificial" on it's face? I am so perplexed.
Ban semen cups.
A society needs to insist that any man who fathers a child, by any means, is liable for the support of that child. The covenant is between the child and the father, not the father and the mother.
For a brief second I thought the Topeka law firm was ‘Swimmin and Associates’, and I thought ‘perfect!’.
It’s not the first time for crazy coincidences in a posted article where the name fit the situation.
Once the state has provided financial assistance for the child in any way, this is going to happen. Once the women couldn’t provide for the child, the agreement became worthless because they weren’t living up to their side of it. A friend’s ex had been receiving direct child support payments from him according to the court order. She got food stamps for a couple of months and that put him “into the system”. That’s how they do it. The man was foolish to ever get involved in this.
Um, so this goes on with every mother and their sperm donors? No matter the method of how the donation is planted? Welfare, EBT, WIC, Section-8,SCHIP etc. spending is extremely low in this country because the Dept of Children and Families go after all the absentee fathers?
Yeah, OK...
Okay, we've experienced it. Ew, this is expensive! Let's get some tax-payer money...
Though leftists are convinced marriage is just a social contrivance, so they despise it, the truth is that socially enforced marriage provides enormous benefits beyond just reproduction.
It gives men greater assurance that the children are his. It gives the woman a promise that the man will help her raise her children. And the benefits to the children are huge, in that they are raised on a “success” track, instead of a “survival” track, like the children with a single parent.
This being said, leftists have long tried to destroy marriage, and are contemptuous of it. And they have had enough success in damaging it, that the secular law has had to intervene to artificially create the biological advantages of marriage.
Two sides of this are marriage and child support, along with shared custody. However the third side, providing benefits to the father, is still missing in the law.
Eventually, this will mean that when a child is born, the hospital will do a DNA test of the umbilical cord to determine the DNA of the child, mother and father. And right now, in many places, women are being asked to name the father.
If the father is known, they will be given a six month period in which to take a DNA test that will certify that they either are, or are not the father. If they are, then they owe support, unless the mother’s “man” offers support. If they are not the father, they may still choose to provide support, but if they do not, they must cease contact with both the mother and the child for good, to avoid having to provide support.
If the woman refuses to identify the father, then the umbilical cord sample will be retained by the hospital, for any future claims of paternity, or so that the state may recover money paid in child support once the father is discovered.
As such, you can easily see the ridiculous extremes the law has to go to, to “sort of” replace the advantages of socially enforced marriage.
Both he and the women involved are theives.
They have stolen something very precious from the little girl. When she grows up, it is most likely she will let them know in no uncertain terms what they have done to her.
Still, at least she will know the identity of her father, which is more than most children conceived by sperm donation and closed adoptions.
I hope they hold this guy accountable and do the same for all other guys in these situations. The only way to stop these people from “playing God” is to make it not worth their while.
1. Has a DNA test been performed? No? Dumb daddy just got dumber.
2. did a lawyer draw up the contract and file it with the court? No? Dumb mommies.
3. In our state, if you get benefits (EBT, health ins., etc) we’re gonna find the baby daddy, genetic test him and make him pay. Even tho folks are on welfare, the state wants someone to help foot the bill...and we want dad to be the one.
4. Don’t ever try this at home! If they’d gone thru a sperm donor bank, all the legalities would have been taken care of. Legally.
5. Most important, how’s the kid?
Idiot.
I believe in Indiana some years back that a court there ordered a sperm donor to by child support
Beautiful example of the complications in this area of law. The lesbian couple should have adopted the baby, terminating the parental relationship between the donor and the infant.
“Schroller, an attorney with Topeka-based Swinnen & Associates, said the state became involved after the mother fell on hard times and applied for financial assistance through the state.”
Kansas domestic lawyer here. I’ve been involved in three cases regarding lesbian couples. What is not said but is obvious is that the “mother” who was going out in the workforce and making the money, dumped her girlfriend. She had no financial obligation towards the child or the child’s mother. Other children are mentioned, fostered and adopted. It is legal in Kansas for a single person to adopt so there are probably one or two special needs kids. Those are easy for the state to support but then there’s the little 3 year old. Mom is told that she can get more money if she will simply give up the name of the biological father. She does and the state pursues him. Interesting case. I hope that the sperm donor goes after the other party in this case whom I hope signed that contract. She probably does have some money and that indemnification clause should require her to pay the sperm donor.
The loser in all this is the little girl who no doubt bonded to both the adults in her life and now is in a home with a single mother, a couple of troubled adopted kids, and no father. She’s lost the other “mom” and is no doubt confused by the whole thing. Lots of damage here and yes, the sperm donor in trying to do a good thing, created chaos. Good intentions and all.
One other thing. It’s clearly the law in Kansas and I assume in most places that the parents cannot contract to deny their child financial support. The support is the right of the child and he/she cannot contract it away. The narrow exception is the statute regarding sperm donors. Because it’s an exception, it will be narrowly interpreted. I predict that unless the sperm donor can get the other “mother” to pay him back, he’s looking at supporting the child and paying the medical expenses until she’s 18.
Make sperm donor “dads” pay.
It’s a cruel joke to breed pet children with no fathers.
Dumbassed idiots all around. After he j’o in a cup, he had no control what happened to it.
I too, like Cl. I’ve made some good sells and buys there.
Before I returned to Christianity (well, I strayed pretty badly but it didn’t ever really leave me), I was friendly with a lesbian couple. They wanted to have children and asked me as a friend to be their donor.
Where I was mentally and morally at the time, that was sort of flattering, stange as it sounds to me today. I hadn’t fathered any children and the thought was sort of nice. I’d be involved as much or as little as I wanted to be, they said, but they wanted a contract regarding custody and parental rights, the child would be legally theirs.
There were niggling pangs of conscience that continued to grow, but what really put the while notion on the wrong foot was the contract. It brought to mind the legal difficulties so many friends of mine had had over the years, due to divorce, custody and child support. So, I got a copy of their proposed contract and made an appointment with an attorney.
The first words out of his mouth were, don’t do it. All moral considerations aside, you’re going to be on the hook just as surely as any other paternity case, ultimately. The contract wasn’t worth the paper it was written upon in a court of law dealing with the welfare of the child, such couples are rarely of any duration and the custodial lesbian “partner” WILL be coming after you. The court will favor the child’s benefit, no question, no consideration of any other agreements.
So, I didn’t do it. In hindsight, I’d have been wracked by guilt, being responsible for bringing a child into such an environment. I do still wonder about what might have been, though. It’s a very strange situation.