[Balto_Boy]

I have no problem with this. The child support is for the children, and they never agreed to grant the father an exemption.

[SoDak]

I agree. His first mistake was fathering children he didn't intend to be a father to. I can't imagine growing up knowing my father didn't want anything to do with me, and just donated the sperm. I'm adopted, but I at least know I came along as a little mistake, not a plan, to a pair of HS kids, and they did the right thing, and I ended up in Ward and June Cleaver's house.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

child support is for the children, and they never agreed to grant the father an exemption.

This was always the legal Achille's Heel of the in-vitro fertilization movement. A mother does not have an exclusive right to wave a paternal obligation. Despite the feminist movement's fierce protestations, the responsibilities of fatherhood can neither be abolished nor annulled.

[RightOnline]

"I have no problem with this. The child support is for the children, and they never agreed to grant the father an exemption."

Right. Then grow a brain, come back, and try again.

..and don't EVER say "for the children" on this Forum again, damn it.

[vikzilla]

The child support is for the children, and they never agreed to grant the father an exemption

I think I have to agree with you on this one.

[FITZ]

The child support is for the children, and they never agreed to grant the father an exemption.

Yes --- a sperm donor makes a decision to bring a life into the world --- why should they not take any responsibility for their own offspring --- it really isn't just about the money they make from donating, the child needs to be supported by his parents.

[Gunrunner2]

Problem is. . .the money is paid to the "mother" and she uses the bucks for gawd-knows-what. As in ALL cases of child-support payments, there is no assurance the bucks go to the child.