you are confusing apples and oranges. This was NOT anonymous donation.
It has NEVER been legal for a mother to waive child support.
This judge did NOT create anything new.
It has NEVER been legal for a mother to waive child support.
This judge did NOT create anything new.
You are not reading. The controversy here is NOT about the non-anonymous nature of this donor. It’s about the basis for the judges ruling, that NO contract can be made between a mother and a sperm donor, with no exclusion for anonymity.
It has ALWAYS been legal for a mother to waive child support for anonymous donors.
The judge DID create something absolutely new (or at least inadvertently could have).
This is going nowhere. Nothing new is being added. Now confused people are shouting. I’ve said all I need. Life’s short. I’m done.