Fyi, this is far from the first case like this. The reason he is still liable is because child support is the right of the child, not the parent, and nobody can sign away another persons rights. California set precedent about ten years ago by forcing a fertility clinic to release donor records.
Actually you can sign away your parental rights with sperm donation. Especially in a state with so many same-sex couples pursuing families.
Also when did CA force a clinic to release donor records I've never heard/read about that.
Fyi, this is far from the first case like this. The reason he is still liable is because child support is the right of the child, not the parent, and nobody can sign away another persons rights. California set precedent about ten years ago by forcing a fertility clinic to release donor records.
Actually you can sign away your parental rights with sperm donation. Especially in a state with so many same-sex couples pursuing families.
Also when did CA force a clinic to release donor records I've never heard/read about that.
I just assumed they would file separately. I know you have the "additional sources of income" part...Hold on...The last part is what I'm wondering, but I need to mull this over for a minute. I can't even think right now TBH.
Can we get an accountant in here?
Well they have to file separately their state doesn't recognize them as a couple. However, just because you file separately doesn't mean one doesn't have to report additional sources of income
They could easily be lying and doing tax/government assistance-fraud. However, I would think with media scrutiny they wouldn't be that stupid.
This is bringing about so many more question than what I initially had in mind.
I would assume it would be the same as having a live-in BF. You can't claim their wages/salary.
If you have a dependent either or can claim the child despite marital status. So, since the biological father gave up his paternal rights but still holds fiscal responsibility for the child (for some bizarre reason), couldn't that be a claim to having a dependent? We all know this is basically spitting on his giving up his paternal rights. Hypocritical of the state of Kansas.
So many questions from this story. I have no idea where to begin.
I would assume it would be the same as having a live-in BF. You can't claim their wages/salary.
If you've been living together for X years and he could be considered your common-law-husband then I suppose? I dunno that's something to take up with the person who handles your taxes lol
In this scenario though, I'd imagine they could get away with reporting the additional income for taxes, but maybe not for gov assistance. Since they are technically both supporting the child- assuming they have jobs! lol
I would assume it would be the same as having a live-in BF. You can't claim their wages/salary.
If you've been living together for X years and he could be considered your common-law-husband then I suppose? I dunno that's something to take up with the person who handles your taxes lol
In this scenario though, I'd imagine they could get away with reporting the additional income for taxes, but maybe not for gov assistance. Since they are technically both supporting the child- assuming they have jobs! lol
Not talking about me. :/ I just don't know what else to compare it to.
Just wondering how I can make the questions that I have in regards to the article somewhat palatable and comprehensible on here.
EDIT: As for the taxes I'm basing this based on my own personal taxes. Kansas probably has their own state tax laws/regulations etc so who knows how its applicable. Generally speaking though additional income rules differ from taxes and gov assistance programs since those are two different entities.
They should have read the laws or didn't swap information. Then all this would have been avoided.
I know this hasn't been brought up yet. But many lesbian couples, I feel, have this Jones status pressure to yield children, more-so than gay men I would argue.
I think there is a lot of pressure on lesbians to produce an offspring to show people that they are able to function as a family, particular in 2013. Gay culture perpetuates bachelorhood versus lesbian culture really perpetuates family and marriage imo.
BTW i'm not defending their actions whatsoever, just trying to understand them somewhat.
I'm basing this based on my own personal taxes. Kansas probably has their own state tax laws/regulations etc so who knows how its applicable. Generally speaking though additional income rules differ from taxes and gov assistance programs since those are two different entities.
This was something else I was mulling over. States make people claim government subsidies and child support on the succeeding year's taxes, and how would this be translated over to a person who is paying for a dependent who is not a dependent?
IDK. *** Kansas! Confusion over.
EDIT: I'm not going to stroll up to Jackson-Hewitt this year, throw down my ***, and say, "Hey! So, I read this article, I've got a bunch of silly, superfluous questions that are a complete waste of your time. Answer me!" LOL!
EDIT: As for the taxes I'm basing this based on my own personal taxes. Kansas probably has their own state tax laws/regulations etc so who knows how its applicable. Generally speaking though additional income rules differ from taxes and gov assistance programs since those are two different entities.
They should have read the laws or didn't swap information. Then all this would have been avoided.
I know this hasn't been brought up yet. But many lesbian couples, I feel, have this Jones status pressure to yield children, more-so than gay men I would argue. I think there is a lot of pressure on lesbians to produce an offspring to show people that they are able to function as a family, particular in 2013. Gay culture perpetuates bachelorhood versus lesbian culture really perpetuates family and marriage imo. BTW i'm not defending their actions whatsoever, just trying to understand them somewhat.
Tell them to buck up and live their lives how they want to without caving to anyone's else's image of what they SHOULD be doing (ie: motherhood, families) OR have children because they WANT them.
My wife and I get ***all the time from coworkers and family members about not having kids. Not their business. We dislike the very concept of having children. We're in no way ready for them or desiring them. Maybe that will change in the future. But for now, we make our decisions and we're not going to ruin our own lives (and the child's!) by having kids.
Understand the concept all you want, but having a child to fulfill someone's else's image of what you should be is every bit as bad as having children just for the welfare check they bring into the house.
Children should be wanted and loved by parents who can afford -- in the physical, financial, educational and emotional senses -- to raise them. If these are not met, then having children is a disservice to the child, to yourself and to the society you expect to eventually deal with them in one way or another.
Fyi, this is far from the first case like this. The reason he is still liable is because child support is the right of the child, not the parent, and nobody can sign away another persons rights. California set precedent about ten years ago by forcing a fertility clinic to release donor records.
Actually you can sign away your parental rights with sperm donation. Especially in a state with so many same-sex couples pursuing families.
Also when did CA force a clinic to release donor records I've never heard/read about that.
Support of the parent is a child's right, not the parent, and yes, they did force the release, one man was considered liable for multiple children.
Citation or didn't happen.
Also,
Quote:
California statutes insulate sperm donor fathers from having to pay child support.
Trabolsi and Associates. On my way to the gym that's first source I could find. But yah CA protects sperm donors from having to pay child support.
A little further research i found this statute is a result of the instances of a known donor being liable since prior laws required donor anonymity to get around support being the child's right, not the parent's.
To bad Kansas is in the dark ages, these kinds of lawsuits only makes it more difficult and expensive for infertile couples to have children and is a major slap in the face to gay rights.
@ramyrez: you said it "your wife and i". You can't compare the social implications of a heterosexual couple vs a lesbian one. Last time i checked the validity of your marriage and ability to foster children isn't scrutinized by the general pubic.
This is "legal" extortion plan and simple. Some laws are pretty stupid. Hows that saying go "Legislate in haste repent at leisure". What a joke this lesbian couple is, he should sue them for custody.
This is "legal" extortion plan and simple. Some laws are pretty stupid. Hows that saying go "Legislate in haste repent at leisure". What a joke this lesbian couple is, he should sue them for custody.
I must agree. It's only fair that if one tries to rape you using the sad state our legal system is in, then it's only fair you do your best to rape them first/back.
This is "legal" extortion plan and simple. Some laws are pretty stupid. Hows that saying go "Legislate in haste repent at leisure". What a joke this lesbian couple is, he should sue them for custody.
So, is there only one employed member of the household? Since the daughter is legally recognized as only the biological mother's and not her partner's...If it was a dual-income family beforehand (filing taxes separately), would she be receiving the benefits of a single-mother in a single-income household because of taxes purposes, along with The Sperminator's contribution, plus the income of her "wife"? (Something tells me I might not be wording this correctly.)
Well when you do all that paperwork it usually asks you for additional sources of income. It definitely asks you for additional income on your taxes. So even if they both aren't recognized as the biological parents/wife-and-wife, they still have to report additional sources of income. Of course they could totally be lying on their taxes and government assistance forms.
My bet is on lyin , as do most white trash in this country. All while sucking off my taxes....
I am STRONGLY against people having children they cannot afford. Therefore, in this case, I agree if they needed public assistance, they shouldn't have had the child. But based on the concepts that "everyone" (Christian majority sitting on their *** watching American Idol, etc.) feels that every American has a God-given right to children, and furthering this concept by saying that every American has at least a potential legitimate claim to public assistance as needed, I think we can all agree that the terms of the contract to which they agreed is legitimate.
What would be your final solution then for someone deemed unworthy to have children that actually gets pregnant? Should they be deemed unworthy beforehand and have forced sterilization or should we wait til pregnancy, dehumanize their unborn child and just force an abortion? social welfare + bad economy = more government dependancy
i guess if you told me that somebody advocating eugenics was what is was going to take for me to finally agree with amandarius on something, i wouldn't have been greatly shiocked
This is "legal" extortion plan and simple. Some laws are pretty stupid. Hows that saying go "Legislate in haste repent at leisure". What a joke this lesbian couple is, he should sue them for custody.
Why? Then he'd have to pay more than $200/month.
It's not like the lesbian couple is trying to get money out of him, the state is trying to force him to pay child support they're not asking for (from the donor, anyway).
The more you post the less it seems you actually are capable of understanding anything more complicated than THEM GOOD, THEM BAD.
This is "legal" extortion plan and simple. Some laws are pretty stupid. Hows that saying go "Legislate in haste repent at leisure". What a joke this lesbian couple is, he should sue them for custody.
you need to learn how to read the facts...
Can't we go back to the middle ground Jet? It was eerily comfortable between us for a while...
This is "legal" extortion plan and simple. Some laws are pretty stupid. Hows that saying go "Legislate in haste repent at leisure". What a joke this lesbian couple is, he should sue them for custody.
I must agree. It's only fair that if one tries to rape you using the sad state our legal system is in, then it's only fair you do your best to rape them first/back.
Correct me if I missed something, but aren't the lesbian couple and the sperm donor on the same side? I thought it was just the state that is trying to go after the guy.
This is "legal" extortion plan and simple. Some laws are pretty stupid. Hows that saying go "Legislate in haste repent at leisure". What a joke this lesbian couple is, he should sue them for custody.
you need to learn how to read the facts...
Can't we go back to the middle ground Jet? It was eerily comfortable between us for a while...
Also wat? Was tongue in cheek sir!
because the couple aren't the ones trying to get money from him.
Correct me if I missed something, but aren't the lesbian couple and the sperm donor on the same side? I thought it was just the state that is trying to go after the guy.
This is "legal" extortion plan and simple. Some laws are pretty stupid. Hows that saying go "Legislate in haste repent at leisure". What a joke this lesbian couple is, he should sue them for custody.
you need to learn how to read the facts...
Can't we go back to the middle ground Jet? It was eerily comfortable between us for a while...
Also wat? Was tongue in cheek sir!
because the couple aren't the ones trying to get money from him.
Hat tip to you then... I AM guilty of headline reading only, in this case.
EDIT: However Does this now mean that the people at DCFS now believe that a sperm is now the equivalent of a child?
This is "legal" extortion plan and simple. Some laws are pretty stupid. Hows that saying go "Legislate in haste repent at leisure". What a joke this lesbian couple is, he should sue them for custody.
you need to learn how to read the facts...
Can't we go back to the middle ground Jet? It was eerily comfortable between us for a while...
Also wat? Was tongue in cheek sir!
because the couple aren't the ones trying to get money from him.
Hat tip to you then... I AM guilty of headline reading only, in this case.
EDIT: However Does this now mean that the people at DCFS now believe that a sperm is now the equivalent of a child?
I think realistically this was a case of the bilogical mother listed the guy as the biological father for birth records regardless of his writing off paternal rights.
The state presumably said "wait a minute... why are you collecting aid before pursuing child support?".
The media sensationalized the *** out of it to justify their existance. If the article was "white heterosexual biological father forced to pay child support, to alleviate federal aid of family unit raising child" no one would *** read past the headline.
First they draw you in with "sperm donor" leading you to believe this hapless *** jizzed in a cup and is now being blindsided. Then the couple makes the statement "we believe this is politically motivated". I bet you do.... If the state mailed me a letter saying they suspected I was being fraudulent with my money I'd love to cry victim too.
Someone please find me what the other woman does for a living. If I'm wrong I'll happily admit it but until then I'm going to assume "gainfully employed and happily filing otherwise to *** the system".
@ramyrez: you said it "your wife and i". You can't compare the social implications of a heterosexual couple vs a lesbian one. Last time i checked the validity of your marriage and ability to foster children isn't scrutinized by the general pubic.
I can't...? I think it's perfectly valid to scrutinize anyone who's BRINGING A CHILD INTO THE WORLD who is doing so just for the sake of keeping up appearances or fulfilling some social obligation.
I am STRONGLY against people having children they cannot afford. Therefore, in this case, I agree if they needed public assistance, they shouldn't have had the child. But based on the concepts that "everyone" (Christian majority sitting on their *** watching American Idol, etc.) feels that every American has a God-given right to children, and furthering this concept by saying that every American has at least a potential legitimate claim to public assistance as needed, I think we can all agree that the terms of the contract to which they agreed is legitimate.
What would be your final solution then for someone deemed unworthy to have children that actually gets pregnant? Should they be deemed unworthy beforehand and have forced sterilization or should we wait til pregnancy, dehumanize their unborn child and just force an abortion? social welfare + bad economy = more government dependancy
i guess if you told me that somebody advocating eugenics was what is was going to take for me to finally agree with amandarius on something, i wouldn't have been greatly shiocked
I cannot discuss what I do for a living. But rest assured. I get to see some of the worst in people. Frankly you really don't want me sharing it anyhow. It'd sour your weekend thinking too much about it.
While "eugenics" isn't a term I like using...I can't really come up with another word that wouldn't simply be a euphimism. Some way of applying the same criteria to giving birth that applies to those looking to adopt would go a long, long way is all I'm saying. I don't have all the answers. I wish I did.
This is "legal" extortion plan and simple. Some laws are pretty stupid. Hows that saying go "Legislate in haste repent at leisure". What a joke this lesbian couple is, he should sue them for custody.
you need to learn how to read the facts...
Can't we go back to the middle ground Jet? It was eerily comfortable between us for a while...
Also wat? Was tongue in cheek sir!
because the couple aren't the ones trying to get money from him.
Hat tip to you then... I AM guilty of headline reading only, in this case.
EDIT: However Does this now mean that the people at DCFS now believe that a sperm is now the equivalent of a child?
In Kansas, they probably do.
Mah... I bet 90% or more of the people in similar departments across the country are all pro-choice. Something smells fishy...
TOPEKA, Kan. — A sperm donor is being ordered to pay child support to a couple he helped have a child.
William Marotta says he gave up all legal rights to the little girl.
But under Kansas law, because the couple didn’t use a doctor to get pregnant with Marotta’s sperm, the state says he’s responsible for the monthly child support payments, according to FOX 4.
Marotta met the lesbian couple through a Craigslist ad seeking a sperm donor.
The post made by couple Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner — William Marotta and his wife responded.
“They were a couple. They couldn’t have children by themselves. Its something I could help with,” Marotta told FOX 4.
Marotta says he didn’t receive any payment and signed away any parental rights long before the little girl was born.
But in October 2012, Marotta says the Kansas Department for Children and Family Services informed him he was being ordered to pay $200 a month in support.
According to court documents, the state argues that because the insemination was not performed by a licensed doctor, the sperm donor contract was null and void.
Marotta believes the state’s argument is at least partially politically motivated.
“I think if this was a lesbian couple in southern California I don’t think it would even be an issue right now,” he said.
Marotta says the child’s mothers fully support him and have told the state they are the ones who should be held responsible.
Worst of the articles I've read, but the other ones were pretty TL;DR, so I went with this one
