Debate on Fox--Lesbian Mom Demands Child Support from Sperm Donor Dad

GlennSacks.com ^ | 8/12/08 | Glenn Sacks

[tbw2]

I think the difference in this case was that it was NOT anonymous. If it was donor 47890 who made said kids, donor 47890 cannot be made to owe money.
This guy made kids, though sans sex with the mother. Not anonymous. Thus not free from child support.

[BooksForTheRight.com]

The ultimate nerve, approved by radical man-hating feminists everywhere. In their world-view, men are good only for their seed and their money. And they are trying to eliminate the need for the seed.

[Valpal1]

The judge addressed that question (which is why Glenn Sacks commentary stinks because he ignored that salient point) and the answer was that their agreement didn’t conform to the requirements of the Uniform Parentage Act and so was unenforceable as a matter of public policy.

For a contract to be legally enforceable, it has to conform to the law.

[HighlyOpinionated]

If a State makes "gay" marriage legal, then won't situations like this be rare? One partner will give the most nurturing care and the other the most financial care and so a divorce will have the one who provided the most finances paying the child support, would it not? And why bring a 'sperm/egg donor' into the situation if there was no legal document outlining what he/she was responsible for. And, IF, as in this case, there seemed to be, how can a Judge rule against an already existing document without more information about the "other half" of the gay-couple? Seems totally UNFAIR and should be appealed.

Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it's wise. (Sperm and Egg donor births.) And if a 'gay' couple want to have a baby, then are they REALLY 'gay?' Why would someone who knows that 2-gender sex is for procreation and has decided to have a same-gender sexual relationship, have a reason or physical desire to produce off-spring? Why would someone be in a same-gender sexual relationship if their hormones were raging for them to produce a baby? Why wouldn't they marry (or have a sexual affair with) someone of the other gender and produce off-spring?

What I can't quite grasp (obviously) is why someone would want to ruin a perfectly good same gender close relationship by bringing sexual intimacy into the equation. I have close friends I love with all my heart, but I would not bring any sexual liaison into the relationship. Male or female. And I can say I love them more than I ever loved either husband.

So, if you can stop laughing at me, FReepMail me an explanation, okay?

[BossLady]

Thank you for your input! The article alluded to the fact that there had been a contract of some sort however, did not seem to go into any details.

I perused the Uniform Parentage Act and it does state, in so many words, that if a man says he is the father...then he is financially responsible.

To this end, even if you have a contract drawn up....it does not seem to matter. My understanding, according to the UPA, is that if you claim parentage....you are responsible...period. What is your opinion?

[Valpal1]

Their agreement wasn’t waiving their parental rights to the child, but instead tried to waive the child’s right to parental support.

My opinion is that children have a right to the support of their parents and that parents cannot waive the basic rights of their offspring as a matter of public policy.

Nor can they sell their children into slavery or give consent to their minor children being used sexually by others.

The judge was right and Glen Sacks picked an inappropriate case to pimp his agenda.

[BossLady]

Yours is a much more eloquent way of stating it ;)

Thank you so much!

[Cheburashka]

Because we compete with them for the hot babes — and we're much better-equipped to please the hotties.

---

[grey_whiskers]

"A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."

But as my son pointed out...

"A child needs a father like a fish needs water."

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

No, it will not. The couple didn’t use a sperm bank. They used a friend/acquaintance.

Substantial benefits for early withdrawal.

Including continued interest.

Cheers!

[Tax-chick]

That was bad!

[chesley]

The “best interests” of the child is always justice between the parents.

That being said, if people could follow God’s laws on sexual morality a little more closely, a whole lot of these problems wouldn’t exist.