Kansas judge says no child support from sperm donor

a reply to: Vasa Croe

And actual donors who sign up for clinics get about $120 .. that is not much either.

If couple wants to have child and are willing to pay a guy who donates the sperm no matter what is the sum of money. It is not his failure if couple breaks up. If this goes through and guy has to pay, it opens doors for hundreds and thousands child custody cases where legimate donors has to pay for the offspring they have been producing during the years they have been donating. It also opens up the rabbit hole where clinics papers will be open and shed some light how many woman have been pregnated with one donors sperm... as it is questionable. Its a huge business.

Guy is not guilty, drama queens are as they are looking for someone who will pay for their own mistakes.

IMHO the guy shouldn't have to pay but, hell hath no fury like a State that doesn't want to pay haha. If I'm remembering correctly I've read about men in the U.K who donated sperm to a bank and STILL had to pay. Theirs is a tyrannical, misandrist government to be sure. Not that ours isn't too far off.

originally posted by: dollukka

Guy is not guilty, drama queens are as they are looking for someone who will pay for their own mistakes.

The mother's did not want this. They are not being drama queens.

The STATE forced it. Probably because they were a Lesbian couple.

"If the presumptive parent, in this case the non-biological mother, had been a man, they never would have gone after the sperm donor," Baylor said.

a reply to: StoutBroux

I call BS since if we switched the sex of the donor to a female surrogate than she would be paid handsomely and the courts would never bother to collect anything from her for the use of her egg and womb.

Double standards abound.

a reply to: Annee


Yes
This is all on the state.

The sperm donor should play them back and demand access and joint custody ha

Folks this was bc of the state, not the participants. Their issue was only a shoddy contract.

On a side note.
Honestly I thought men lost all right to their sperm once it enters a women, My body my rights. If a fetus is solely women's property how does it transfer into joint ownership once she decides to birth it.
That is where this legal mess lies.
Until that issue is solved child support and a lot of arguments/cases of that nature are on shoddy ground.
Solving this issue either way would create a large decline in risky behavior and bad mate selection.

Worse are those cases when a non-biological father is forced to pay.

originally posted by: chrismarco
Screw that...no donors they should simply adopt..

Ah...but according to conservatives gays shouldn't adopt.....

a reply to: Bluntone22

The solution to the problem is very simple, men need to stop selling their sperm on social sites, or stop donating sperm completely.


Is not worth it.

www.gov.uk...
reply to: AtheAlmightyOne

Nope, you are incorrect, donations to authorised clinics are exempt in the UK.
See the UK.GOV legislation explained in the link above.

originally posted by: jellyrev

Honestly I thought men lost all right to their sperm once it enters a women, My body my rights. If a fetus is solely women's property how does it transfer into joint ownership once she decides to birth it.

There are cases where the sperm donor sued for parental rights.

I believe at least one won.

a reply to: Annee

Is it not clear cut in the US then?
UK is simple, use a licensed clinic or medical facility then no parental responsibility for sperm donor...go unlicensed then the sperm donor is the legal liable father.

a reply to: StoutBroux

Actually, I disagree.

I think this is the common sense approach here - These two women would have created the child between them the old fashioned way if they could, but being two women, they needed outside assistance. Clearly (and from the case history to date), they did not have the money for professional clinical assistance, so they did it on the cheap.

But the judge likely saw it that way. If they had been like any hetero couple, they would have gone ahead and gotten preggers because nothing stops any willing and capable couple from doing that, certainly not lack of money.

So they got the genetic material from an outside source, but they would have kept it all in-house if they could have, and this is part of so-called marriage equality here. If homosexual couples want to be treated the same, then they need to be. The person the state should be collecting from is the absconding partner, not the donor. She would have been the other parent in a matching hetero equation.

It doesn't work to say that homosexual couples are just like hetero ones ... except where they aren't because ... it's not convenient to be.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Bluntone22

The solution to the problem is very simple, men need to stop selling their sperm on social sites, or stop donating sperm completely.


Is not worth it.

He wasn't advertising as far as I know. They advertised and he accepted the offer.

originally posted by: jellyrev
On a side note.
Honestly I thought men lost all right to their sperm once it enters a women, My body my rights.

Correct

If a fetus is solely women's property how does it transfer into joint ownership once she decides to birth it.
That is where this legal mess lies.

After birth, it is no longer part of the woman's body .... It is now a fully

fledged citizen requiring financial emotional and dietary assistance!