Opinions? Should he have to pay child support?

Go Beavers

tkbelle1980 wrote:

In the end there are a series of choices. Woman have a choice whether or not to have a child, why then do fathers not have the same right? Why do fathers have no rights, sperm donation or not? Sure the argument is a moral argument, but why should woman have control of everything. i am all about woman's rights being a woman myself, but if the father says he doesn't want the baby, then the woman is faced with a decision, to have the baby and be responsible for it, or terminate it. But men, they don't have that option, their fate falls upon the woman's choice. How is that fair? So because she decides to have the baby now he is responsible and has no choice. This has only a little bit to do with issue at hand, but it something that came to mind when i was reading this article. Just being the devils advocate here, but I am interested to hear your thoughts. So please weigh in.

This issue is not complex, he donated and it was understood that was the only involvement that he would have. Seems a little unfair that he is now being made to be responsible for a child that he did not agree he would be responsible for, this lesbian couple should be the ones responsible, they were the ones that decided to bring this child into the world and care for it. The real question is, Why then is the other participant not being forced to take care of what she conscientiously agreed to.... Oh that's right because gay marriage is illegal there and they don't have equal rights so her responsibilities are unrecognized and state is ignoring what is really going on.. Most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, once again the justice system fails... And another innocent person falls victim.. So I guess the lesson here is, don't donate sperm through any channels then those set out by law or it could come back to bite you. I see someone that was compassionate that was helping a gay couple be parents and fulfilling their dream of being parents being taken advantage of for an act of kindness.

Part of the issue is that they didn't go through the proper legal channels in the first place, so the state is maintaining that legal process by going after the dad. There would be a lot of fallout if all you had to do as a father to relinquish your responsibilities is have you and the mother sign a homemade contract that isn't even notarized. I don't think that there lesbian matter necessarily. The biological parents have responsibility even if one of the parents is with someone else, male or female, married or not to the other person. If that third person legally adopted the child and the bio father relinquished his rights, then the story would be different.

The justice system hasn't necessarily failed, it's just following what has been laid out in the past, and it's being pushed by the state's interest of the expense of public assistance.

Go Beavers

tkbelle1980 wrote:

fear4freedom wrote:

once one donates something....it no longer is theirs. Once a person or couple accept that donation....its theirs forever. Simple as that!

I loved this response!

Then couldn't you just say that having sex is a "donation"?

blackredyellow

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

IF what this guy says is true...........then no way in hell.

but I'd never personally donate. I couldn't live knowing I had biological children out there and not be involved in their lives.

Totally agree with that... I couldn't imagine the knowledge that I have children out there that I don't know.

Horos

tkbelle1980 wrote:

In the end there are a series of choices. Woman have a choice whether or not to have a child, why then do fathers not have the same right? Why do fathers have no rights, sperm donation or not? Sure the argument is a moral argument, but why should woman have control of everything. i am all about woman's rights being a woman myself, but if the father says he doesn't want the baby, then the woman is faced with a decision, to have the baby and be responsible for it, or terminate it. But men, they don't have that option, their fate falls upon the woman's choice. How is that fair? So because she decides to have the baby now he is responsible and has no choice. This has only a little bit to do with issue at hand, but it something that came to mind when i was reading this article. Just being the devils advocate here, but I am interested to hear your thoughts. So please weigh in.

This issue is not complex, he donated and it was understood that was the only involvement that he would have. Seems a little unfair that he is now being made to be responsible for a child that he did not agree he would be responsible for, this lesbian couple should be the ones responsible, they were the ones that decided to bring this child into the world and care for it. The real question is, Why then is the other participant not being forced to take care of what she conscientiously agreed to.... Oh that's right because gay marriage is illegal there and they don't have equal rights so her responsibilities are unrecognized and state is ignoring what is really going on.. Most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, once again the justice system fails... And another innocent person falls victim.. So I guess the lesson here is, don't donate sperm through any channels then those set out by law or it could come back to bite you. I see someone that was compassionate that was helping a gay couple be parents and fulfilling their dream of being parents being taken advantage of for an act of kindness.

I can't believe someone actually feels the same way about this that I do.

I'm all for pro-choice and the man should have a choice in the matter as well.

Jason P

If this was done through traditional channels, then heck no.

But once I saw Craigslist was involved ....

:fp:

hedonist

Been thinking about this...and I find it sad that more is being put into going after this guy (who, granted, loses some points for walking this road via Craigslist), rather than true deadbeats and shitty parents.

justam

Who Princess wrote:

QuarterToTen wrote:

In today's world these situations are going to be happening more and more frequently.

A friend of mine was asked to donate sperm in a similar situation. He declined because of potential support/custody issues down the road. His feeling was that no matter how the woman felt now, there was no predicting what might happen in the future.

I was flabbergasted that someone would just ask a man to father her child, like it's borrowing a cup of sugar. :shock:

Yes, and I also feel there's something wrong with this casual baby production. To make children so casually trivializes the process of creation. These people were behaving as if they were making an inanimate object rather than a living being!

JonnyPistachio

How about this one?

Ind. man must support artificially conceived kids
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/ap/ap/kids ... ids/nTx8Z/

The Associated Press
INDIANAPOLIS — An eastern Indiana man who divorced his wife must pay child support for their son and daughter even though the children were artificially conceived using sperm donated by another man, the state appeals court has ruled.

The Indiana Court of Appeals on Tuesday rejected the Delaware County man's argument that he shouldn't have to pay child support because the children were not his biological offspring.

According to court documents, the couple married in 2001 and began investigating artificial insemination after they learned that the husband's vasectomy was likely irreversible. A friend offered his sperm and the husband agreed because he and the other man resembled each other and shared similar "characteristics and morals," the documents say.

They performed the procedure without a doctor and gave birth to a boy in 2004, court records say. Two years later, she repeated the procedure and gave birth to a girl.

The husband treated the children as if they were his biological children and after the couple separated in 2009, spent time with them, and helped pay for daycare, clothing and sports fees, the documents say. But when the husband filed for divorce in October 2010, he said he was not obligated to pay support because the kids were not his biological children. He also said he had not consented to the artificial insemination. His ex-wife contended he had.

A Delaware County judge ruled last May that the boy and girl were children of the marriage and that the husband was required to help support them. The state appeals court upheld that decision.

Indiana has laws that regulate artificial insemination to some extent — requiring HIV testing of sperm, for example — there is no statute regarding parental rights or child support.

"Indiana's in a legal vacuum," said Steve Litz, a Monrovia attorney who specializes in reproductive issues. "It screams for some kind of legislation."

The Known Donor Registry, a website that helps connect would-be parents with sperm donors, says 32 states stipulate that the husband, not the sperm donor, is the legal father. Virtually all of those states require the husband's consent — generally, in writing.

"Most states require the husband to have consented to the AI before they will hold him liable for child support," Michael J. Higdon, an associated professor at the University of Tennessee College of Law, said in an email Wednesday.

"However, the courts are quite flexible in finding such 'consent,'" he added.

In a research paper published in 2011, Higdon said a handful of states maintain that a husband's consent is implied as long as he does not object within a certain amount of time.

Litz said the appellate court made the right decision.

"The Court of Appeals correctly said we don't care about biology; If you are going to hold yourself out as a parent, we are going to impose parental rights on you," he said.

Attorneys for the former couple had no immediate comment Wednesday.

hedonist

Jesus. How do you raise children as if they WERE yours biologically and then just say "fuck it" down the road.

And what if they'd adopted their children?

Whatta piece of work this guy is. I feel for those kids - gotta do a number on their little psyches.

JonnyPistachio

hedonist wrote:

Jesus. How do you raise children as if they WERE yours biologically and then just say "fuck it" down the road.

And what if they'd adopted their children?

Whatta piece of work this guy is. I feel for those kids - gotta do a number on their little psyches.

Definitely weird and f'ed up. He should pay. I just thought it was ironic that a story like this popped up after the original story in this thread. Some people thought the guy in the original story should have to pay because he was the sperm donor/biological father, though he was completely out of the kids lives and went into it as a donor only!

keeponrockin

JonnyPistachio wrote:

How about this one?

Ind. man must support artificially conceived kids
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/ap/ap/kids ... ids/nTx8Z/

The Associated Press
INDIANAPOLIS — An eastern Indiana man who divorced his wife must pay child support for their son and daughter even though the children were artificially conceived using sperm donated by another man, the state appeals court has ruled.

The Indiana Court of Appeals on Tuesday rejected the Delaware County man's argument that he shouldn't have to pay child support because the children were not his biological offspring.

According to court documents, the couple married in 2001 and began investigating artificial insemination after they learned that the husband's vasectomy was likely irreversible. A friend offered his sperm and the husband agreed because he and the other man resembled each other and shared similar "characteristics and morals," the documents say.

They performed the procedure without a doctor and gave birth to a boy in 2004, court records say. Two years later, she repeated the procedure and gave birth to a girl.

The husband treated the children as if they were his biological children and after the couple separated in 2009, spent time with them, and helped pay for daycare, clothing and sports fees, the documents say. But when the husband filed for divorce in October 2010, he said he was not obligated to pay support because the kids were not his biological children. He also said he had not consented to the artificial insemination. His ex-wife contended he had.

A Delaware County judge ruled last May that the boy and girl were children of the marriage and that the husband was required to help support them. The state appeals court upheld that decision.

Indiana has laws that regulate artificial insemination to some extent — requiring HIV testing of sperm, for example — there is no statute regarding parental rights or child support.

"Indiana's in a legal vacuum," said Steve Litz, a Monrovia attorney who specializes in reproductive issues. "It screams for some kind of legislation."

The Known Donor Registry, a website that helps connect would-be parents with sperm donors, says 32 states stipulate that the husband, not the sperm donor, is the legal father. Virtually all of those states require the husband's consent — generally, in writing.

"Most states require the husband to have consented to the AI before they will hold him liable for child support," Michael J. Higdon, an associated professor at the University of Tennessee College of Law, said in an email Wednesday.

"However, the courts are quite flexible in finding such 'consent,'" he added.

In a research paper published in 2011, Higdon said a handful of states maintain that a husband's consent is implied as long as he does not object within a certain amount of time.

Litz said the appellate court made the right decision.

"The Court of Appeals correctly said we don't care about biology; If you are going to hold yourself out as a parent, we are going to impose parental rights on you," he said.

Attorneys for the former couple had no immediate comment Wednesday.

I think dude should have to pay in this case.

PJ_Soul

I think the man is a fucking idiot and the woman is a total bitch.