Community Chat

[esmerelda]

Carelessness on his part. If he'd gone through a third party, e.g. a sperm bank, he wouldn't have this problem. Maybe someone has already said this.

Any unfairness is on the part of the lesbians.

If he has to pay, it's more proof that no good deed goes unpunished...IMO.

[Lila Belle]

On 1/24/2014 JaneMarple said:

I forgot who mentioned it on this thread but was absolutely correct in the fact the judge doesn't recognise the ex partner of the bio mother as a legal parent. Meanwhile the bio Dad has to pay, SMH.

Perhaps Kansas does not permit 2 gay parents adopt ?

[JaneMarple]

On 1/24/2014 Lila Belle said:

On 1/24/2014 JaneMarple said:

I forgot who mentioned it on this thread but was absolutely correct in the fact the judge doesn't recognise the ex partner of the bio mother as a legal parent. Meanwhile the bio Dad has to pay, SMH.

Perhaps Kansas does not permit 2 gay parents adopt ?

It would only be one since one of the ladies gave birth to the baby.

[Rainbows and Roses]

I don't think the man should have to pay a dime.............a man and woman need to raise children.

[occasionalrain]

It seems there are two issues here.

The first is the claim for assistance that the mother made which was denied because the woman named the father instead of just saying a sperm donor. That was her fault but she's obviously not too bright.

The second is the contract in which the donor gave up his parental rights and the mother agreed to it. That should be honored by the court. But then if the mother hadn't filed for support it never would have gone to court. So, again it's the mother who is at fault. Many woman are happy to do without child support, never request it, if it means the father stays out of their child's life.

So who filed with the court? Did the mother appeal the decision of Public Assistance and that is what got the court involved?

It seems the mother should find a way to support her child or put the child up for adoption and leave the donor out of it.

[JaneMarple]

On 1/24/2014 occasional rain said:

It seems there are two issues here.

The first is the claim for assistance that the mother made which was denied because the woman named the father instead of just saying a sperm donor. That was her fault but she's obviously not too bright.

The second is the contract in which the donor gave up his parental rights and the mother agreed to it. That should be honored by the court. But then if the mother hadn't filed for support it never would have gone to court. So, again it's the mother who is at fault. Many woman are happy to do without child support, never request it, if it means the father stays out of their child's life.

So who filed with the court? Did the mother appeal the decision of Public Assistance and that is what got the court involved?

It seems the mother should find a way to support her child or put the child up for adoption and leave the donor out of it.

Well said

[madzonie]

What did he think the people he "donated" to were going to do with the "deposit?" He really should have not done this without thinking it through and without some legal advice. Also, what difference does it make that it was a lesbian couple? Lots of heterosecksual couples look to donors.

[JaneMarple]

On 1/24/2014 madzonie said: What did he think the people he "donated" to were going to do with the "deposit?" He really should have not done this without thinking it through and without some legal advice. Also, what difference does it make that it was a lesbian couple? Lots of heterosecksual couples look to donors.

It doesn't make a difference that the couple were lesbians BUT it is factor in the case!

[occasionalrain]

On 1/24/2014 madzonie said: What did he think the people he "donated" to were going to do with the "deposit?" He really should have not done this without thinking it through and without some legal advice. Also, what difference does it make that it was a lesbian couple? Lots of heterosecksual couples look to donors.

If it were a heterosexual couple they would have more than likely been married so the husband would be recognized as the child's father. Because Kansas prevents lesbian couples from marrying, they don't recognize the non mother of the couple as a parent so won't require her to pay child support.

[JaneMarple]

On 1/24/2014 occasional rain said:

On 1/24/2014 madzonie said: What did he think the people he "donated" to were going to do with the "deposit?" He really should have not done this without thinking it through and without some legal advice. Also, what difference does it make that it was a lesbian couple? Lots of heterosecksual couples look to donors.

If it were a heterosexual couple they would have more than likely been married so the husband would be recognized as the child's father. Because Kansas prevents lesbian couples from marrying, they don't recognize the non mother of the couple as a parent so won't require her to pay child support.

Which happens to be very unfair.