Anna Adrielle wrote:

did they even do a background check? family history and all that? What if their kid was born with a serious illness or handicap due to a genetic flaw that otherwise would have been detected by a spermbank? I mean, really, I get that getting pregnant can be an expensive and difficult process, but why would you try and save money and hassle on this...

Most women don't check any of those things ordinarily. Hell, many women have no idea who the father is...more or less his medical background.

T wrote:
Hell, many women have no idea who the father is...more or less his medical background.

Today I'd go with "most."

Anna Adrielle wrote:

did they even do a background check? family history and all that? What if their kid was born with a serious illness or handicap due to a genetic flaw that otherwise would have been detected by a spermbank? I mean, really, I get that getting pregnant can be an expensive and difficult process, but why would you try and save money and hassle on this...

My wife and I didn't do any generic testing or family history before having children.  Why should that be needed?

I think this whole thing is bullshit, its just the state trying to get money from this man.  Three adults agreed to this so I don't see a need for the state to be involved, apparently they did up a contract stating he was just a donor.

Caradoc wrote:

Today I'd go with "most."

No, not most. Personally, the thought of having semen from several men in you so closely that you don't know who impregnated you is just gross. Yuck.

A Lester II wrote:
My wife and I didn't do any generic testing or family history before having children.  Why should that be needed?

I think this whole thing is bullshit, its just the state trying to get money from this man.  Three adults agreed to this so I don't see a need for the state to be involved, apparently they did up a contract stating he was just a donor.

I understand the states point of view...why should the state be responsible for these random babies and dad walks free. I get the states point but I think the state should have simply denied assistance in such a complicated case

-Jen- wrote:

It is not required here unless the father claims the child is not his.

That would make sense, too.

T wrote:
Most women don't check any of those things ordinarily. Hell, many women have no idea who the father is...more or less his medical background.

Many women in committed relationships disregard their partners medical history to have children. Hell, if they don't consider their own before knowingly conceiving why would they consider their partners?

Also, a large portion of pregnancies are not planned. If the couple decides that abortion isn't an option there isn't much that knowing their familial medical history can do.

I was seeing a genetic specialist when I first got pregnant because my husbands half brother has a laundry list of developmental issues. We were told that its really a roll of the dice even with two parents with a healthy family history. Thankfully after digging around through his brothers medical records it was determined that none of his conditions were genetic and we were released from this doctors care. We were also told that even of something was detected with our fetus that our options would most likely be to hope for the best or terminate the pregnancy.

His half brother taught us a lesson though. Both of his parents are totally healthy and happened to have a child that is not. It's all just a shot in the dark.

T wrote:

No, not most. Personally, the thought of having semen from several men in you so closely that you don't know who impregnated you is just gross. Yuck.

I take it you don't read "Texts from Last Night."

-Jen- wrote:

It is not required here unless the father claims the child is not his.

Do you know what Michigan law was? I believe they've changed it but it was essentially this.

If a couple was married, the law presumed the husband to be the father, and he was responsible for support. Period. End of story.

The only possible way around that, was if a couple was in a legal seperation. But that wasn't 100% etched in granite either.

Damianne wrote:
Or just gotten a doctor involved. There are safe legal ways to use a private donor that don't involve dumping jizz into your vag and praying.
You can go to your OB/GYN and let them know what you intend to do and not all of the options break the bank. You can have your doctor dump the jizz into your vag and pray.

But there's no fun involved for anyone that way.

Seriously, I don't understand why the other half of the lesbian couple shouldn't be responsible for this, if anyone should be.

Small Fruit Pits wrote:

But there's no fun involved for anyone that way.

Seriously, I don't understand why the other half of the lesbian couple shouldn't be responsible for this, if anyone should be.

Because they technically weren't married and because they can conceive the child together. I don't know how same sex couple adoptions work in Kansas...that would be the way that she would be responsible for te child but if she never legally adopted it she had no reaponsibility to it.

Little Queenie wrote:

Because they technically weren't married and because they can conceive the child together. I don't know how same sex couple adoptions work in Kansas...that would be the way that she would be responsible for te child but if she never legally adopted it she had no reaponsibility to it.

Being married don't mean shit. More than one non-married partner has adopted kids, both hetero & gay.

The article doesn't specify, but one might imagine.....

Small Fruit Pits wrote:
Being married don't mean shit. More than one non-married partner has adopted kids, both hetero & gay.

The article doesn't specify, but one might imagine.....

They may both have adopted the children previously but never completed the paperwork for the final child. While the man may have dissolved his rights and responsibilities to the mothers he apparently didn't do so to the state of Kansas. I believe that is part of the paperwork you fill out at a sperm bank.

Edit: but if Kansas state law requires that a doctor be involved they all fucked up, including the lawyer. All of what is ring argued is neither here nor there.

Justin wrote:
Here's the guts of the case as I understand them:

Lesbian couple in Kansas have adopted kids. They want a natural kid. They put an ad in Craigslist for the one who will be the bio mom to get someone to complete the transaction.

Man replies to ad, donates his sperm to the endeavor. That's theoretically the end of his involvement, although the nice couple do keep him advised now and then by email of the kid's development.

The couple split. The non-bio mom ex-partner agrees to provide support to the kids.

Bio mom falls on hard times. Gets state support.

Non-bio mom gets disabled. Still wants to help. Cannot do much.

State presses bio mom for the dad. After feeling some pressure, she coughs up Mr. Craigslist.

State ponders what to do. Under Kansas law, a "sperm donor" is someone who donates sperm, logically enough, but under medical supervision. If no medical supervision was going on, they call the sperm donor "dad." This is because they don't want to be in a situation where deadbeat boyfriend dad says, "Oh, I was just a sperm donor." They want proper records and proper screening to consider someone a mere "sperm donor" and exempt from parental responsibility.

Apparently, the only medical involvement with this pregnancy was from Turk E. Baster, M.D.  So the state says, "Mr. Craigslist is the dad. We need to collect from him."

In an irony befitting these new times, the state can't go after the non-bio mom because under Kansas law, there's no marriage between homosexuals.

That's what I have come to understand in this case. Make of it what you will.

Yup, Kansas and their homophobic state government.

Small Fruit Pits wrote:

Being married don't mean shit. More than one non-married partner has adopted kids, both hetero & gay.

The article doesn't specify, but one might imagine.....

Being married means quite a bit - especially as it relates to child support. Check the earlier link, not only is there a short time limitation but the man would have to prove fraud to support a case that he shouldn't pay support. This for a child that has been reasonable shown to not be his biologically but produced during the time of marriage.

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
Hey I'm curious. I've read about women who have acted as pregnancy surrogates and in my memory this is usually a situation set up privately. Have any of these women been successfully sued for support because they are the biological parent?

I've always heard of surrogates going through agencies.

Edit: at the very least the surrogate goes through a legal process. If an inseminated egg is implanted, that obviously has to be done by a doctor. If the woman is artificially inseminated, that is done by a doctor. If a woman is giving up her own pregnancy to a new couple that is done via adoption.

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:

Being married means quite a bit - especially as it relates to child support. Check the earlier link, not only is there a short time limitation but the man would have to prove fraud to support a case that he shouldn't pay support. This for a child that has been reasonable shown to not be his biologically but produced during the time of marriage.

The child is his biologically. Circumstances of conception abd relationship status doesn't change if a child is biologically his or not.

A Lester II wrote:

My wife and I didn't do any generic testing or family history before having children.  Why should that be needed?

I think this whole thing is bullshit, its just the state trying to get money from this man.  Three adults agreed to this so I don't see a need for the state to be involved, apparently they did up a contract stating he was just a donor.

I'm assuming you knew a little bit about your wife's family history when you decided to have kids, like if there is a history of breast cancer? not that would have made a difference in your decision to have kids, but still, you do know some info

testing, for std's, to begin with. and they do tests at a spermbank to make sure there aren't any major genetic flaws, at least there's that. using sperm from a total stranger, nono.

and yes, I know plenty of women get pregnant through onenightstands or of guys they never met, things like that. but this situation is different: they had the option to use sperm that they know is safe, right?

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
Hey I'm curious. I've read about women who have acted as pregnancy surrogates and in my memory this is usually a situation set up privately. Have any of these women been successfully sued for support because they are the biological parent?

Surrogates are NOT the biological parent. They are carrying a child who is biologically another man and woman's.