Althouse: "Craigslist sperm donor forced to pay child support to lesbian couple - despite giving up parental rights to the baby BEFORE she was born."

January 1, 2013

"Craigslist sperm donor forced to pay child support to lesbian couple - despite giving up parental rights to the baby BEFORE she was born."

How sympathetic are you to this man's argument?

Why should the father of a child ever be allowed to contract out of responsibility for it? If he is, why shouldn't the state control the extent to which this is permitted? Whatever you think of the mother, what about the child?

218 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 218 of 218

Tully said...: Take note that it was the state of Kansas that brought the suit. Consider the taxpayers who are on the hook if children are not supported.

Uh huh. But that doesn't apply to THIS child. The other "mommy" said she would pay the child support at the level detyermined by the state, per the couple's own agreement and the contract. The state refused and insisted that the biological father must be named, and must pay the child support. Neither of the adoptive parents were going to leave the child unsupported.

The truth is that the state insisted because to allow the lesbian couple to follow their own agreement would be against the wishes of Pastor Sammy Brownback. Can't allow anything at all to imply that gay marriage can possibly work out, even in a "divorce." A same-sex "other parent" therefore cannot be allowed to fill the paternal role for child support, despite her complete willingness to do so and to be legally bound to do so.

Kansas Child Services is full of horror stories about its dysfunctional rent-seeking, especially in its roles as foster-parent funder and mandatory middle-man in child support (for which it takes a cut, of course). The department's funding is largely dependent on shovelling kids into foster care and taking that cut of ALL child support payments. We had to fight for years for legislation just to get grandparents considered as possible guardians.; 1/1/13, 6:55 PM
jr565 said...: RE: "some parasite is jettisoned from your vagina"

Did Sigourney Weaver star in that?

I'm just using the word "parasite" because that's what many prochoicers describe a fetus as, and I was trying to be as callous as them.
But yes, I do think Sigourney was in that movie.; 1/1/13, 7:15 PM
Don M said...: Why not have the women be responsible?; 1/1/13, 7:16 PM
Saint Croix said...: In the film American Graffiti which of the following actors would've been most likely to be a sperm donor?

Charles Martin Smith, duh!; 1/1/13, 7:53 PM
Saint Croix said...: For instance, if a seventeen-year-old lies about her age and is then inseminated with the sperm of a forty-three-year-old law professor is this now statutory rape or just a Lifetime Movie of the Week?

Can't. Stop. Giggling.; 1/1/13, 7:55 PM
Saint Croix said...: Yep. Ready for another donation.

You're going to have to stop cause I hurt myself.; 1/1/13, 7:58 PM
Saint Croix said...: If Betamax isn't Trooper, he's Trooper-in-a-cup.

He's the modern, hip Trooper York. Trooper from 1976.

Trooper with a fro.; 1/1/13, 8:34 PM
Anonymous said...: RE: "Charles Martin Smith, duh!"

Myself, I gave the edge to Richard Dreyfuss. I just picture him with a plastic cup and a 60's Sears-Roebuck catalog open to the women-in-pajamas pages.

And thank you for the kind words...; 1/1/13, 8:40 PM
Known Unknown said...: The sperm donor has no obligation. The child will be taken care of by the social contract in welfare or SSI.

That's what we can a win-win.; 1/1/13, 11:50 PM
acm said...: Tully, even though the lesbians (and they are not adoptive parents---lots of lesbians do do what they should have done, and adopt their partner's babies, but these two didn't) said they wouldn't leave the child unsupported, that's exactly what they did. The state wouldn't be involved if the child weren't being supported by the taxpayers.

I have little sympathy for the guy. Tully called these women "adoptive parents" but that's not right. You can't transfer your parental rights and obligations to your own mother, let alone a stranger from craigslit, without clearing it with the court. What they essentially tried to do was have Lesbian #2 adopt this child. With no lawyer representing the baby's interests, no judge approving it. No, sorry, can't do that. Even though I think his intentions were good, the result was that a child was brought into a home that couldn't support her. He apparently had no reason besides the email via craigslist to think that the lesbians actually were financially stable, and still he made a baby with one of them. Because he felt good. Sorry, bud, but even altruigasms have risks.; 1/1/13, 11:58 PM
acm said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/2/13, 12:01 AM
AlanKH said...: Creating a life with the premeditated intent to keep the kid from ever getting to know the father is utterly cruel and reprehensible.; 1/2/13, 3:46 AM
Don Jansen said...: Potential gamete donors be warned. I bet this thread would be a lot shorter if a non-gender specific term such as "gamete" were used. That of course assumes the ruling is non-gender specific. But it is not. Since the law allows individuals to contract away the parental obligations owed to a child in the case of doctor-facilitated procedures, the child's rights are really not at issue here. And since egg donations require medical supervision, women are pretty much free from any responsibility under the law. The adoption comments are perceptive. If Althouse really believed what she is saying she would endorse collecting child support from birth mothers who give children up for adoption.; 1/2/13, 10:16 AM
acm said...: Don, I think the state does go after birth mothers who claim to have had their child "adopted" without actually going to court. Plus, under KS law, if this sperm donation had been medically supervised, this man would be as protected as any egg donor.; 1/2/13, 11:00 AM
James said...: Pro-choice women arguing for the rights of children, that's fucking hilarious. Whatever argument works to give women more power, right? Fuck principle!; 1/2/13, 2:50 PM
Anonymous said...: He's not the father. He's the sperm donor. (Latin had a neat language for this: pater and mater versus genitor and genitrix.)

One of the women bore the child; she is the mother. The other woman was the spouse or partner of that woman and the willing co-parent; she is as close to being the "father" as any human being could be—she willingly assumed that role. In effect, this was an adoption. It ought to have terminated the genitor's parent rights and responsibilities.

From a public policy angle, if this kind of legal action can succeed, than no lesbian couple will ever again find a willing sperm donor, once the word gets around. You have to look at the incentive effects as well as the allocational effects.; 1/3/13, 6:47 PM
Unknown said...: Well, there should be a law on this. Men are actually just asked for a sperm, not to father a child so why haunt them when the parents can't support the child anymore?; 1/14/13, 1:51 AM
Unknown said...: I went to Marshall Davis Brown to weigh my choices before deciding to conceive. I think it's good to set up a contract that is drawn up by a lawyer you trust before entering into any sort of family-related contract, and to make sure they're a great and reputable lawyer. There is too much that can go wrong in these kind of situations.; 4/11/13, 10:49 AM