Posted on 01/23/2014 3:42:29 PM PST by McBuff
A man who provided sperm to a lesbian couple in response to an online ad is the father of a child born to one of the women and must pay child support, a Kansas judge ruled Wednesday.
Topeka resident William Marotta had argued that he had waived his parental rights and didn’t intend to be a father. Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi rejected that claim, saying the parties didn’t involve a licensed physician in the artificial insemination process and thus Marotta didn’t qualify as a sperm donor, The Topeka Capital-Journal reported.
‘‘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,’’ Mattivi wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I notice that this is a female judge....genetically programmed to f**k men over to provide resources to
a child. Further proof that men should never get
married or father children in the USSA. The game is
rigged and the rules completely one sided.
See what happens when you try to save a few bucks? It probably never occurred to them that lawyers had written the law to make themselves money.
The more this happens, the better. It's wrong to sell or give your child to crazy people. If men understand that they're going pay just as much as if they'd had a child with their own wife or girlfriend, maybe they'll stop doing it.
Hey, they’re entitled. They probably even get big incomes from government employment or government-linked business to maintain their influence as bipartisan political constituents.
“Family law” has been anti-family law for a long time. It was turned solidly against fatherhood during the ‘80s and ‘90s. It’s a cash cow for “professionals” and just another way to prevent domestic competition (working class families) from rising. It’s much of the cause of the economic decline.
Yes you get it.
What a burn. Didn’t even get to directly deposit the merchandise.
That concieving a child results in a responsibility to provide for that child is not a problem.
Except for perverts of course.
The sexual revolution was a movement both by and for perverts, and oh how bitter they are at any intimation that the concept of personal responsibility applies to them.
I agree. Gotta be legal with a licensed doctor. Pretty simple. If not it sets a messy precident of he said/she said paternity suits.
"A filing Wednesday by the DCF argues the sperm donor contract overlooks ‘‘the well-established law in this state that a person cannot contract away his or her obligations to support their child.’’ The right for support belongs to the child, not the parents, the filing says."
Here's the problem, the redefinition of marriage has removed the term "Father" and "Mother." It is now simply "Partner 1" and "Partner 2." The redefining of marriage has removed the right of children to be raised and/or supported by a Father and Mother. It's a train wreck.
Good!
Agree. Why Freepers would defend men who do this is beyond me, but some will.
When a man spits in the face of God, he deserves no mercy.
I better leave the country!
It appears to me that some think anything is okay, as long as there's a contract and payments are made. Sell your kids? No problem as long as they're in deliverable condition and the buyer's check doesn't bounce.
I agree. . .I’m pointing out how redefining marriage has confused this fundamental responsibility and has usurped the rights of children to be raised and supported by a father and mother.
But it appears he's not too bright in the first place.
1] The child suffers because he/she is being allowed to be raised by 2 pervs. I notice the court has zero to say about it.
2] How did this case get before the state in the first place? Did the bltches rat him out?
3]The idea that this guy owes the state some $6k is utter crap.
Run, young feller...those women wanted to be the parents...they should be responsible...not him.
A just result would also include castration so as to prevent this idiot from doing this again.
One wonders if the intent all along was to find some poor sap to defray the cost of raising the kid, knowing they could sue for child support. Be interesting to know some more of the details of this case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.