Kansas judge says no child support from sperm donor

I am truly amazed of the things that make it to our court system today.

Two women put an add on Craigslist looking for a sperm donor.
Nothing unusual there.
They agreed to pay $50 for each "donation".
Again, not unusual....but cheap?

Now since the women have split and the child is receiving state assistance, Kansas wants child support from the donor.
Common sense tells me that the other mother should be the one paying.

Trump needs to get same sex marriage recognized by the feds. This situation would be so much easier.

hosted.ap.org...

Well one can't be too bright to answer that ad and fulfill the request. Recognizing same sex marriage has nothing to do with financial obligations of raising a child. Maybe Kansas will get with the program on LBGT issues but in the mean time, there's still a child to deal with.

I don't have the answer but imho, the sperm donor should be held liable because the sole purpose of the job he was hired to do was create a child. In what world did he think by donating his sperm in a private deal he would be relieved of all future commitment and responsibilities on the outcome?

What the non birthing partner should have done is legally adopt the child as soon as it was born and terminate the sperm donors future financial obligation. Some people aren't too bright.

a reply to: StoutBroux

In what world did he think by his actions he would be relieved of all future commitment and responsibilities on the outcome?

That's why, when getting involved with something like this, people need to have everything spelled out, in writing, by professionals who handle this sort of thing.....NOT answer a Craigslist add.

a reply to: Bluntone22

I find it ridiculous that people would think that a sperm donor should provide child support in nearly any situation. Sperm donation in and of itself implies that he woman wanting it and the man providing it do not want or share any sort of relationship other than providing and receiving sperm.

That said, it would always be in the best interest of ANYONE who donates sperm in such a manner to draft up a quick contract noting that the donor will not be liable for any unwilling financial assistance pertaining to the birthed child. Whether or not that will always hold up in court is another matter, but at least it's there and is something.

Of course, my advice would be to only provide such genetic donations to a proper sperm bank, where protections would be much higher against a situation like this.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

A contract won't help. Child support is considered the right of the child and cannot be negotiated away.

Screw that...no donors they should simply adopt..

I wonder if the result had gone the other way would he get custody in some form .

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: StoutBroux

In what world did he think by his actions he would be relieved of all future commitment and responsibilities on the outcome?

That's why, when getting involved with something like this, people need to have everything spelled out, in writing, by professionals who handle this sort of thing.....NOT answer a Craigslist add.

Agreed, it was a business transaction, money changed hands. A contract should have been written up detailing whether the donor would be at least partially responsible for the upbringing of any child that occurred as a result of the donation. If no such contract exists then arguably they are liable. If that would be upheld by a court is up to the court I guess.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: SlapMonkey

A contract won't help. Child support is considered the right of the child and cannot be negotiated away.

I believe if this couple had went to a regular sperm clinic for their product, no support would be expected.
But ya get what ya pay for.

originally posted by: hutch622
I wonder if the result had gone the other way would he get custody in some form .

He didnt want a child... he DID want the 50 bucks a "pop" though.

a reply to: Advantage

if the result had gone the other way

What part dont you understand . It was a hypothetical question .

she should just take it on the chin !
Or should of 👍

I'll see myself out .

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

That said, it would always be in the best interest of ANYONE who donates sperm in such a manner to draft up a quick contract noting that the donor will not be liable for any unwilling financial assistance pertaining to the birthed child. Whether or not that will always hold up in court is another matter, but at least it's there and is something.

If this is the same story I remember, they had a contract -- but, their state only accepts a contract through a doctor or licensed facility.

And neither parent wanted the sperm donor involved. It was the state that decided someone had to pay.

I think, from memory, one of the women felt threatened if she didn't reveal the sperm donor.

Best to know your state laws.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Trump needs to get same sex marriage recognized by the feds. This situation would be so much easier. 

Or just regulate sperm donations.

originally posted by: Denoli
she should just take it on the chin !
Or should of 👍

I'll see myself out .

That was bad... very bad....... made me laugh though.

Thanks lol

originally posted by: Denoli
she should just take it on the chin !
Or should of 👍

I'll see myself out .

Tip your waitresses

Idiocracy burocracy !

My mouth yawned more than a puppeteers puppet !

When the puppeteer has had his thump cut off !

Yawwwwwwnnnnmmmm !

# like this should just get thrown in the governments version of the trash bin !

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: Advantage

if the result had gone the other way

What part dont you understand . It was a hypothetical question .

It was a joke.. calm down.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Imo, if she wanted 'support' she should have 'secured' the donor, too.

You don't 'buy' that for fifty bucks.

She didn't want a man then she shouldn't be allowed to lay claim now.

My guess is that someone answering a Craigslist ad for sperm donation for $50 likely doesn't have much to give in the way of support.

Either way, no he shouldn't be responsible for it IMO, but I doubt he was smart enough to get a notarized document from them stating he was released from any future obligations.