Sperm Donor Required to Pay Child Support (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

Link

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Title is slightly misleading.

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 (http://bit.ly/LHwLyW) 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.

 

[DSP]

There is no mention of how she got inseminated with no doctor

So either he slept with the lesbian or she pushed his sperm in to herself

 

[Sarnoff]

Happens all the time. We were discussing this last week, "best interests of the child" require someone chip in for his upbringing, and the courts like it when they can find "the father" to pin it on.

And it also frequently happens that men end up paying support to children that aren't even theirs. Even if they can get a DNA test to prove the mother was cheating on him and they're not the genetic father, they're still on the hook for child support.

Family court hates men.

 

[Sarnoff]

or she pushed his sperm in to herself

As Leykis warns, women will take a used condom out of the trash to inseminate themselves and get the man on the hook. Anything's possible.

 

[DSP]

or she pushed his sperm in to herself

As Leykis warns, women will take a used condom out of the trash to inseminate themselves and get the man on the hook. Anything's possible.

Another reason I dont use them

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

There is no mention of how she got inseminated with no doctor

So either he slept with the lesbian or she pushed his sperm in to herself

link

 

[DSP]

There is no mention of how she got inseminated with no doctor

So either he slept with the lesbian or she pushed his sperm in to herself

link

Lulz

 

[The Commish]

Title is slightly misleading.

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 (http://bit.ly/LHwLyW) 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.

My title or the article title?

 

[Long Ball Larry]

or she pushed his sperm in to herself

As Leykis warns, women will take a used condom out of the trash to inseminate themselves and get the man on the hook. Anything's possible.

Exactly. A little Leykis 101.

 

[DSP]

or she pushed his sperm in to herself

As Leykis warns, women will take a used condom out of the trash to inseminate themselves and get the man on the hook. Anything's possible.

Exactly. A little Leykis 101.

Did this happen to someone on the boards?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Title is slightly misleading.

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 (http://bit.ly/LHwLyW) 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.

My title or the article title?

I guess both. When I read "sperm donor" I just assume they're talking about some random schlub who deposited at a sperm bank.

 

[Wilfredo Ledezma]

Title is slightly misleading.

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 (http://bit.ly/LHwLyW) 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.

My title or the article title?

I guess both. When I read "sperm donor" I just assume they're talking about some random schlub who deposited at a sperm bank.

agreed this is more like an e-Sperm Peddler

 

[DSP]

Title is slightly misleading.

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 (http://bit.ly/LHwLyW) 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.

My title or the article title?

I guess both. When I read "sperm donor" I just assume they're talking about some random schlub who deposited at a sperm bank.

agreed this is more like an e-Sperm Peddler

Arent most of us these days?

 

[Sarnoff]

Title is slightly misleading.

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 (http://bit.ly/LHwLyW) 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.

My title or the article title?

I guess both. When I read "sperm donor" I just assume they're talking about some random schlub who deposited at a sperm bank.

I believe that there are no cases in which some random schulb made an anonymous deposit at the sperm bank, and was later hooked for child support. However, there have been cases where someone made a non-anonymous deposit at the sperm bank, and through clerical error, his sperm was given to the wrong person. It's happened a couple of times where the guy was then forced to pay child support (IIRC, black couple and white couple separately go to the same IVF clinic for help getting pregnant. Black guy's sperm accidentally gets given to both couples, and white lady gives birth to black baby. White guy doesn't want to live his life raising someone else's kid and files for divorce. Court says black guy owes support.)

 

[DSP]

Title is slightly misleading.

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 (http://bit.ly/LHwLyW) 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.

My title or the article title?

I guess both. When I read "sperm donor" I just assume they're talking about some random schlub who deposited at a sperm bank.

I believe that there are no cases in which some random schulb made an anonymous deposit at the sperm bank, and was later hooked for child support. However, there have been cases where someone made a non-anonymous deposit at the sperm bank, and through clerical error, his sperm was given to the wrong person. It's happened a couple of times where the guy was then forced to pay child support (IIRC, black couple and white couple separately go to the same IVF clinic for help getting pregnant. Black guy's sperm accidentally gets given to both couples, and white lady gives birth to black baby. White guy doesn't want to live his life raising someone else's kid and files for divorce. Court says black guy owes support.)

What a nightmare. I would have hit the road too

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Title is slightly misleading.

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 (http://bit.ly/LHwLyW) 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.

My title or the article title?

I guess both. When I read "sperm donor" I just assume they're talking about some random schlub who deposited at a sperm bank.

I believe that there are no cases in which some random schulb made an anonymous deposit at the sperm bank, and was later hooked for child support.

Right. But that's what I thought the article/case was going to be about...which would be a much more interesting/disturbing story.

 

[Zow]

Title is slightly misleading.

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 (http://bit.ly/LHwLyW) 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.

My title or the article title?

I guess both. When I read "sperm donor" I just assume they're talking about some random schlub who deposited at a sperm bank.

I believe that there are no cases in which some random schulb made an anonymous deposit at the sperm bank, and was later hooked for child support. However, there have been cases where someone made a non-anonymous deposit at the sperm bank, and through clerical error, his sperm was given to the wrong person. It's happened a couple of times where the guy was then forced to pay child support (IIRC, black couple and white couple separately go to the same IVF clinic for help getting pregnant. Black guy's sperm accidentally gets given to both couples, and white lady gives birth to black baby. White guy doesn't want to live his life raising someone else's kid and files for divorce. Court says black guy owes support.)

What a nightmare. I would have hit the road too

WTF

 

[Zow]

Family court has nothing to do with men and women, married or not married, and who made the stupider of the decisions.

It's all about the best interests of the child. Gripe with the statutory methods of payment, but not with the family court - they apply the law.

 

[Zow]

Title is slightly misleading.

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 (http://bit.ly/LHwLyW) 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.

My title or the article title?

I guess both. When I read "sperm donor" I just assume they're talking about some random schlub who deposited at a sperm bank.

I believe that there are no cases in which some random schulb made an anonymous deposit at the sperm bank, and was later hooked for child support.

Right. But that's what I thought the article/case was going to be about...which would be a much more interesting/disturbing story.

The OP's story, while unfortunate, isn't really that out there for family law.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Not really surprised that a lesbian would do this. I honestly think that lesbians should be stripped of parental rights.

 

[DSP]

Not really surprised that a lesbian would do this. I honestly think that lesbians should be stripped of parental rights.

All lesbians or just these 2?

If all do you feel the same about 2 gay men raising children?

 

[DSP]

Title is slightly misleading.

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 (http://bit.ly/LHwLyW) 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.

My title or the article title?

I guess both. When I read "sperm donor" I just assume they're talking about some random schlub who deposited at a sperm bank.

I believe that there are no cases in which some random schulb made an anonymous deposit at the sperm bank, and was later hooked for child support. However, there have been cases where someone made a non-anonymous deposit at the sperm bank, and through clerical error, his sperm was given to the wrong person. It's happened a couple of times where the guy was then forced to pay child support (IIRC, black couple and white couple separately go to the same IVF clinic for help getting pregnant. Black guy's sperm accidentally gets given to both couples, and white lady gives birth to black baby. White guy doesn't want to live his life raising someone else's kid and files for divorce. Court says black guy owes support.)

What a nightmare. I would have hit the road too

WTF

I would have gotten a divorce too if I was that man. You would raise someone elses child? Especially if they were what that one is?

F that. Id be gone so fast my sneakers eould catch fire

 

[SacramentoBob]

Not really surprised that a lesbian would do this. I honestly think that lesbians should be stripped of parental rights.

All lesbians or just these 2?

If all do you feel the same about 2 gay men raising children?

Women are usually given custody of the children in a divorce. If a woman leaves a man and suddenly discovers she was a lesbian all that time, she should give up any rights to the children she had from her marriage. It was a scam from the beginning.

 

[DSP]

Not really surprised that a lesbian would do this. I honestly think that lesbians should be stripped of parental rights.

All lesbians or just these 2?If all do you feel the same about 2 gay men raising children?

Women are usually given custody of the children in a divorce. If a woman leaves a man and suddenly discovers she was a lesbian all that time, she should give up any rights to the children she had from her marriage. It was a scam from the beginning.

Cant argue with you

 

[Zow]

Title is slightly misleading.

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 (http://bit.ly/LHwLyW) 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.

My title or the article title?

I guess both. When I read "sperm donor" I just assume they're talking about some random schlub who deposited at a sperm bank.

I believe that there are no cases in which some random schulb made an anonymous deposit at the sperm bank, and was later hooked for child support. However, there have been cases where someone made a non-anonymous deposit at the sperm bank, and through clerical error, his sperm was given to the wrong person. It's happened a couple of times where the guy was then forced to pay child support (IIRC, black couple and white couple separately go to the same IVF clinic for help getting pregnant. Black guy's sperm accidentally gets given to both couples, and white lady gives birth to black baby. White guy doesn't want to live his life raising someone else's kid and files for divorce. Court says black guy owes support.)

What a nightmare. I would have hit the road too

WTF

I would have gotten a divorce too if I was that man. You would raise someone elses child? Especially if they were what that one is?

F that. Id be gone so fast my sneakers eould catch fire

Assuming my situation were the same as that one, where it was simply a mistake, yes I absolutely would. And I would litigate it to the extent necessary (although in AZ the legal presumption would actually be that I'm the father anyway).

The skin color thing isn't even worth commenting on.

 

[DSP]

Title is slightly misleading.

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 (http://bit.ly/LHwLyW) 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.

My title or the article title?

I guess both. When I read "sperm donor" I just assume they're talking about some random schlub who deposited at a sperm bank.

I believe that there are no cases in which some random schulb made an anonymous deposit at the sperm bank, and was later hooked for child support. However, there have been cases where someone made a non-anonymous deposit at the sperm bank, and through clerical error, his sperm was given to the wrong person. It's happened a couple of times where the guy was then forced to pay child support (IIRC, black couple and white couple separately go to the same IVF clinic for help getting pregnant. Black guy's sperm accidentally gets given to both couples, and white lady gives birth to black baby. White guy doesn't want to live his life raising someone else's kid and files for divorce. Court says black guy owes support.)

What a nightmare. I would have hit the road too

WTF

I would have gotten a divorce too if I was that man. You would raise someone elses child? Especially if they were what that one is?F that. Id be gone so fast my sneakers eould catch fire

Assuming my situation were the same as that one, where it was simply a mistake, yes I absolutely would. And I would litigate it to the extent necessary (although in AZ the legal presumption would actually be that I'm the father anyway). The skin color thing isn't even worth commenting on.

You would raise it?

Btw you mentioned skin color not me

 

[fatness]

Not really surprised that a lesbian would do this. I honestly think that lesbians should be stripped of parental rights.

All lesbians or just these 2?

If all do you feel the same about 2 gay men raising children?

Women are usually given custody of the children in a divorce. If a woman leaves a man and suddenly discovers she was a lesbian all that time, she should give up any rights to the children she had from her marriage. It was a scam from the beginning.

And that's best for the children...... why?

They're not furniture to fight over.

 

[beavers]

Not really surprised that a lesbian would do this. I honestly think that lesbians should be stripped of parental rights.

Lol.

 

[beavers]

Lesbian here and the biological mother of a donor conceived child. I have sole custody of my daughter, and the ID of the donor will be given to us at 18. By the direction of this thread, should I:

Give up custody to the state? After all, I am one of those lesbians.

Hire a private detective to uncover the identity of the donor, because, well kids are expensive!

 

[DiStefano]

Lesbian here and the biological mother of a donor conceived child. I have sole custody of my daughter, and the ID of the donor will be given to us at 18. By the direction of this thread, should I:

Give up custody to the state? After all, I am one of those lesbians.

Hire a private detective to uncover the identity of the donor, because, well kids are expensive!

It's all about CYA.

 

[DSP]

Lesbian here and the biological mother of a donor conceived child. I have sole custody of my daughter, and the ID of the donor will be given to us at 18. By the direction of this thread, should I:

Give up custody to the state? After all, I am one of those lesbians.

Hire a private detective to uncover the identity of the donor, because, well kids are expensive!

Your a lesbian and your name is beavers?

Ill play along. If you track down the donors ID isnt he protected from any responsibility?

 

[DrJ]

Not really surprised that a lesbian would do this. I honestly think that lesbians should be stripped of parental rights.

All lesbians or just these 2?

If all do you feel the same about 2 gay men raising children?

Women are usually given custody of the children in a divorce. If a woman leaves a man and suddenly discovers she was a lesbian all that time, she should give up any rights to the children she had from her marriage. It was a scam from the beginning.

And that's best for the children...... why?

They're not furniture to fight over.

Because they don't have a lying whore as a role model anymore.

 

[beavers]

Lesbian here and the biological mother of a donor conceived child. I have sole custody of my daughter, and the ID of the donor will be given to us at 18. By the direction of this thread, should I:

Give up custody to the state? After all, I am one of those lesbians.

Hire a private detective to uncover the identity of the donor, because, well kids are expensive!

Your a lesbian and your name is beavers?Ill play along. If you track down the donors ID isnt he protected from any responsibility?

Yes. Why would one seem so surprised that a lesbian would have the name beavers? I tried to sign up as bald beavers but that didn't fly.

Secondly, yes, there is protection for the donor that I cannot ask for any type of parental support, even when I know his identity. The man in the OP did not properly protect himself under the state law.

 

[pollardsvision]

What the hell is going on in here?

 

[DSP]

Lesbian here and the biological mother of a donor conceived child. I have sole custody of my daughter, and the ID of the donor will be given to us at 18. By the direction of this thread, should I:

Give up custody to the state? After all, I am one of those lesbians.

Hire a private detective to uncover the identity of the donor, because, well kids are expensive!

Your a lesbian and your name is beavers?Ill play along. If you track down the donors ID isnt he protected from any responsibility?

Yes. Why would one seem so surprised that a lesbian would have the name beavers? I tried to sign up as bald beavers but that didn't fly. Secondly, yes, there is protection for the donor that I cannot ask for any type of parental support, even when I know his identity. The man in the OP did not properly protect himself under the state law.

I believe you. I love the screename

 

[-fish-]

Family court has nothing to do with men and women, married or not married, and who made the stupider of the decisions.

It's all about the best interests of the child. Gripe with the statutory methods of payment, but not with the family court - they apply the law.

Could be your dumbest post ever

 

[fatness]

Not really surprised that a lesbian would do this. I honestly think that lesbians should be stripped of parental rights.

All lesbians or just these 2?

If all do you feel the same about 2 gay men raising children?

Women are usually given custody of the children in a divorce. If a woman leaves a man and suddenly discovers she was a lesbian all that time, she should give up any rights to the children she had from her marriage. It was a scam from the beginning.

And that's best for the children...... why?

They're not furniture to fight over.

Because they don't have a lying whore as a role model anymore.

I'll take your word, positive role model that you are.

 

[Loan Sharks]

Lesbian here and the biological mother of a donor conceived child. I have sole custody of my daughter, and the ID of the donor will be given to us at 18. By the direction of this thread, should I:

Give up custody to the state? After all, I am one of those lesbians.

Hire a private detective to uncover the identity of the donor, because, well kids are expensive!

Your a lesbian and your name is beavers?Ill play along. If you track down the donors ID isnt he protected from any responsibility?

Yes. Why would one seem so surprised that a lesbian would have the name beavers? I tried to sign up as bald beavers but that didn't fly.

Secondly, yes, there is protection for the donor that I cannot ask for any type of parental support, even when I know his identity. The man in the OP did not properly protect himself under the state law.

Hypothetical, if you did know his name and all you had to do was make a phone call and he would have to pay $6000 a month in child support, do you make the call knowing full well the deal you had up front?

While this guy in the OP mistakenly believed he had protected himself under the law. A simple I don't know who the father is may have been the right call here.

 

[Loan Sharks]

Not really surprised that a lesbian would do this. I honestly think that lesbians should be stripped of parental rights.

All lesbians or just these 2?

If all do you feel the same about 2 gay men raising children?

I would say not all lesbians just some of them. There is a very solid portion that are man hating bigots. Gays would not screw a woman over they love women.

 

[BassNBrew]

Title is slightly misleading.

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 (http://bit.ly/LHwLyW) 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.

My title or the article title?

I guess both. When I read "sperm donor" I just assume they're talking about some random schlub who deposited at a sperm bank.

I believe that there are no cases in which some random schulb made an anonymous deposit at the sperm bank, and was later hooked for child support. However, there have been cases where someone made a non-anonymous deposit at the sperm bank, and through clerical error, his sperm was given to the wrong person. It's happened a couple of times where the guy was then forced to pay child support (IIRC, black couple and white couple separately go to the same IVF clinic for help getting pregnant. Black guy's sperm accidentally gets given to both couples, and white lady gives birth to black baby. White guy doesn't want to live his life raising someone else's kid and files for divorce. Court says black guy owes support.)

What a nightmare. I would have hit the road too

WTF

I would have gotten a divorce too if I was that man. You would raise someone elses child? Especially if they were what that one is?F that. Id be gone so fast my sneakers eould catch fire

Assuming my situation were the same as that one, where it was simply a mistake, yes I absolutely would. And I would litigate it to the extent necessary (although in AZ the legal presumption would actually be that I'm the father anyway). The skin color thing isn't even worth commenting on.

You would raise it?

Btw you mentioned skin color not me

Well the couple was going to the sperm bank in the first place. It wasn't the wife's fault that they got the wrong sperm and the husband wasn't going to be the biological father in either case.

 

[DrJ]

Not really surprised that a lesbian would do this. I honestly think that lesbians should be stripped of parental rights.

All lesbians or just these 2?

If all do you feel the same about 2 gay men raising children?

Women are usually given custody of the children in a divorce. If a woman leaves a man and suddenly discovers she was a lesbian all that time, she should give up any rights to the children she had from her marriage. It was a scam from the beginning.

And that's best for the children...... why?

They're not furniture to fight over.

Because they don't have a lying whore as a role model anymore.

I'll take your word, positive role model that you are.

Good, glad we could clear that up.

 

[DSP]

Title is slightly misleading.

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 (http://bit.ly/LHwLyW) 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.

My title or the article title?

I guess both. When I read "sperm donor" I just assume they're talking about some random schlub who deposited at a sperm bank.

I believe that there are no cases in which some random schulb made an anonymous deposit at the sperm bank, and was later hooked for child support. However, there have been cases where someone made a non-anonymous deposit at the sperm bank, and through clerical error, his sperm was given to the wrong person. It's happened a couple of times where the guy was then forced to pay child support (IIRC, black couple and white couple separately go to the same IVF clinic for help getting pregnant. Black guy's sperm accidentally gets given to both couples, and white lady gives birth to black baby. White guy doesn't want to live his life raising someone else's kid and files for divorce. Court says black guy owes support.)

What a nightmare. I would have hit the road too

WTF

I would have gotten a divorce too if I was that man. You would raise someone elses child? Especially if they were what that one is?F that. Id be gone so fast my sneakers eould catch fire

Assuming my situation were the same as that one, where it was simply a mistake, yes I absolutely would. And I would litigate it to the extent necessary (although in AZ the legal presumption would actually be that I'm the father anyway). The skin color thing isn't even worth commenting on.

You would raise it?

Btw you mentioned skin color not me

Well the couple was going to the sperm bank in the first place. It wasn't the wife's fault that they got the wrong sperm and the husband wasn't going to be the biological father in either case.

It sounded more like they mixed up the two guys samples, jot that they were looking for a donor. If they were looking for a donor obviously they wouldnt have chosen anyone like the other husband so the divorce is completely justified.

 

[Zow]

Family court has nothing to do with men and women, married or not married, and who made the stupider of the decisions.

It's all about the best interests of the child. Gripe with the statutory methods of payment, but not with the family court - they apply the law.

Could be your dumbest post ever

You prefer I qualify it with saying I'm characterizing my jurisdiction or that I used some hyperbole to stress the best interests issue?

On second thought, just go back to blocking me. Probably more enjoyable that way for the both of us.

 

[beavers]

Lesbian here and the biological mother of a donor conceived child. I have sole custody of my daughter, and the ID of the donor will be given to us at 18. By the direction of this thread, should I:

Give up custody to the state? After all, I am one of those lesbians.

Hire a private detective to uncover the identity of the donor, because, well kids are expensive!

Your a lesbian and your name is beavers?Ill play along. If you track down the donors ID isnt he protected from any responsibility?

Yes. Why would one seem so surprised that a lesbian would have the name beavers? I tried to sign up as bald beavers but that didn't fly.Secondly, yes, there is protection for the donor that I cannot ask for any type of parental support, even when I know his identity. The man in the OP did not properly protect himself under the state law.

Hypothetical, if you did know his name and all you had to do was make a phone call and he would have to pay $6000 a month in child support, do you make the call knowing full well the deal you had up front?While this guy in the OP mistakenly believed he had protected himself under the law. A simple I don't know who the father is may have been the right call here.

No.

In fact, my ex partner (who I was legally married to at the time), decided that children were not for her and moved out when my daughter was 4 months. Before giving birth, the plan was to shae custody legally should we ever break up. Well, it happened and as a parent, why would I share custody with someone who didn't really want the child? Fast forward about 10 months later ... Ex said she would give $$ in a last ditch effort, I declined.

 

[Run It Up]

Not sure if its been mentioned in here cause I'm not gonna read 44 posts, but the mother had no interest in pursuing this. The state found out the details and is pursuing the $6,000 they would have made.

 

[BigJohn]

Title is slightly misleading.

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 (http://bit.ly/LHwLyW) 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.

My title or the article title?

I guess both. When I read "sperm donor" I just assume they're talking about some random schlub who deposited at a sperm bank.

I believe that there are no cases in which some random schulb made an anonymous deposit at the sperm bank, and was later hooked for child support. However, there have been cases where someone made a non-anonymous deposit at the sperm bank, and through clerical error, his sperm was given to the wrong person. It's happened a couple of times where the guy was then forced to pay child support (IIRC, black couple and white couple separately go to the same IVF clinic for help getting pregnant. Black guy's sperm accidentally gets given to both couples, and white lady gives birth to black baby. White guy doesn't want to live his life raising someone else's kid and files for divorce. Court says black guy owes support.)

What a nightmare. I would have hit the road too

WTF

I would have gotten a divorce too if I was that man. You would raise someone elses child? Especially if they were what that one is?

F that. Id be gone so fast my sneakers eould catch fire

You were already going to be raising someone else's child, Einstein.

 

[roadkill1292]

What the hell is going on in here?

The gay bashers have a lot of pent up stupid.

 

[beavers]

Not sure if its been mentioned in here cause I'm not gonna read 44 posts, but the mother had no interest in pursuing this. The state found out the details and is pursuing the $6,000 they would have made.

Excellent point, that has been overlooked in this thread.

"When the couple encountered money difficulties and one sought state benefits, the state petitioned to have Marotta declared the child's father and financially responsible."

In other words, this is about Kansas not recognizing the non-biological parent as the parent. Instead, they sought out the biological father, and voided the contract because they did not follow procedure by going through the physician.

 

[The Commish]

Not sure if its been mentioned in here cause I'm not gonna read 44 posts, but the mother had no interest in pursuing this. The state found out the details and is pursuing the $6,000 they would have made.

Excellent point, that has been overlooked in this thread.

"When the couple encountered money difficulties and one sought state benefits, the state petitioned to have Marotta declared the child's father and financially responsible."

In other words, this is about Kansas not recognizing the non-biological parent as the parent. Instead, they sought out the biological father, and voided the contract because they did not follow procedure by going through the physician.

And this was my intent for the thread. I just thought the whole thing was wrong.