Gryph wrote:
Someone posted a thread about this a day or so ago.  Not sure where it went.

SB

ShivaKitty wrote:
Donating sperm by just dropping it off at someone's house??

Didn't he think that seemed sketchy???

"Hey man, just jizz in a cup and drop it off. Don't worry, it's totally cool! Nothing bad has ever come from a Craigslist ad!"

Little Queenie wrote:

"Hey man, just jizz in a cup and drop it off. Don't worry, it's totally cool! Nothing bad has ever come from a Craigslist ad!"

They must have offered that guy a crazy sum to do that, or either he was just completely stupid.

ShivaKitty wrote:

They must have offered that guy a crazy sum to do that, or either he was just completely stupid.

a crazy 3 sum?

Paolo Diavolo wrote:

a crazy 3 sum?

you're on a roll tonight. pulling out the one liners like a fucking boss!

Damianne wrote:
"because William Marotta didn't work through a clinic or doctor, as required by state law, he can be held responsible for about $6,000 that the child's biological mother received through public assistance"

Makes complete and total sense.

Right. The state (not either of the women) sued his ass. Makes sense to me.

Damianne wrote:
"because William Marotta didn't work through a clinic or doctor, as required by state law, he can be held responsible for about $6,000 that the child's biological mother received through public assistance"

Makes complete and total sense.

yup...

Damianne wrote:
"because William Marotta didn't work through a clinic or doctor, as required by state law, he can be held responsible for about $6,000 that the child's biological mother received through public assistance"

Makes complete and total sense.

Too bad the State rarely does the same when men are proven to NOT be the father of a child. They still hold him responsible for child support.

It's rather sad how men are being told they have responsibility in so many cases where they have no rights.

Caradoc wrote:
Too bad the State rarely does the same when men are proven to NOT be the father of a child. They still hold him responsible for child support.

It's rather sad how men are being told they have responsibility in so many cases where they have no rights.

Kind of a "taxation without representation" situation.

I guess I'm not surprised - men don't do well in situations like this.  The surprising thing is the logic that if you do the deed with the assistance of a doctor, you're home free.  Sounds like the AMA was lobbying when that law was passed.

Managing Light wrote:

Kind of a "taxation without representation" situation.

I guess I'm not surprised - men don't do well in situations like this.  The surprising thing is the logic that if you do the deed with the assistance of a doctor, you're home free.  Sounds like the AMA was lobbying when that law was passed.

I believe there is a legal contract that you sign when you donate that removes your rights and responsibilities.

I'm assuming some dude responding to a Craigslist ad didn't sign any sort of contract.

DanaBarrett Photography wrote:
he signed a contract, but the state claims its not legal because the inseminating didn't take place in a hospital.

There are laws that surround artificial conception...I wonder if there was a lawyer involved in this from the get go. Was the contract drawn up on a cocktail napkin?

Little Queenie wrote:
I believe there is a legal contract that you sign when you donate that removes your rights and responsibilities.

I'm assuming some dude responding to a Craigslist ad didn't sign any sort of contract.

You'd be incorrect.

Court records show that Marotta, Schreiner and Bauer signed an agreement in March 2009, with the women agreeing to "hold him harmless" financially. The agreement also said the child's birth certificate would not list a father.

Now whether that's a valid written contract is the matter in question.

Little Queenie wrote:
I believe there is a legal contract that you sign when you donate that removes your rights and responsibilities.

I'm assuming some dude responding to a Craigslist ad didn't sign any sort of contract.

The responsibilities at issue are responsibilities to the child and to the government.  The mother can't sign away the child's claim or the government's claim.  So no private contract will relieve the donor of responsibility.

The usual release of responsibility is statutory:  there are laws that protect sperm donors.  In this case, the law applies only when the process is done though the medical system.

MesmerEyes Photography wrote:
It all boils down to the government getting money. That is all they are good for lately.

This ^ poor guy you live and you learn I guess

Dan K Photography wrote:
If you can artificially inseminate without paying a fortune to a doctor you should be allowed to do so and have the same rights.

Ridiculous.

Agreed.

My neighbors paid a fortune to get pregnant. It took a few tries and they had to pay the sum each time.

This poor guy

Caradoc wrote:

Too bad the State rarely does the same when men are proven to NOT be the father of a child. They still hold him responsible for child support.

It's rather sad how men are being told they have responsibility in so many cases where they have no rights.

lolwut

Farenell Photography wrote:

You'd be incorrect.

Court records show that Marotta, Schreiner and Bauer signed an agreement in March 2009, with the women agreeing to "hold him harmless" financially. The agreement also said the child's birth certificate would not list a father.

Now whether that's a valid written contract is the matter in question.

I think the issue is that he didn't go through the proper channels to where the state would recognize his waiver.

Caradoc wrote:

Too bad the State rarely does the same when men are proven to NOT be the father of a child. They still hold him responsible for child support.

It's rather sad how men are being told they have responsibility in so many cases where they have no rights.

In my state ( as I'm sure most) you are required ( both mother and father) to submit to a paternity test in order to even bring child support to court....

Damianne wrote:

lolwut

lol yes. Seen that scenario many many times over the years.

MesmerEyes Photography wrote:
It all boils down to the government getting money. That is all they are good for lately.

The government provided aid to the mother(s).  It is trying to be reimbursed for what it spent.

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.

I read the article, your summary is right on the money. I feel so bad for that guy, try and be a good person and it just comes to bite you back in the ass ten fold.  The state of Kansas is retarded.

Damianne wrote:

lolwut

Yes, this has happened again and again.

Dan K Photography wrote:
If you can artificially inseminate without paying a fortune to a doctor you should be allowed to do so and have the same rights.

Ridiculous.

or, the mothers could have just gone with a spermbank instead of trying to find a way outside of what is legally provided

Anna Adrielle wrote:

or, the mothers could have just gone with a spermbank instead of trying to find a way outside of what is legally provided

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.

Cait Chan wrote:

In my state ( as I'm sure most) you are required ( both mother and father) to submit to a paternity test in order to even bring child support to court....

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

Damianne wrote:

lolwut

http://divorce.clementlaw.com/child-sup … d-support/

The Florida justices ruled 7-0 against Richard Parker. The Court ruled Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support. Parker's child support payments will total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man's child.

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.

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...