First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Lesbian couple requests child support from sperm donor.
6610 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / North Dakota
Offline
Posted 1/3/13 , edited 1/3/13
I dont know to much about but what i do know is that he is going to be sued for child support and the state is going to help this couple because their broke. The child is three. The man sold his liquid offspring on graigslist even signed a contract forbidding this exact thing but some how, they found loop holes.

Here the link for the story and an enterview with the guy too.

http://news.yahoo.com/child-support-claim-rankles-sperm-donor-lesbian-couple-014725388.html

I Am not in any way trying to be sexist or homophobic. Im simply asking for opinions on who is at right here.
10616 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Portland, Oregon
Offline
Posted 1/3/13
Well, it's obvious the lesbian couple understood the agreement and is merely using this man to squeeze as much money they can out of him. I don't think he should be responsible to pay child support for 14 more years because he tried to help this couple out.

Granted, he should not have used craigslist and gone through an actual physician.
137308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / Georgia
Offline
Posted 1/3/13
From what the article states, it's actually the state of Kansas who's trying to get him to pay child support, not the couple. It's pretty stupid to violate the regulations that come with donating sperm, which means he doesn't have to pay any form of support at all. I wonder why they're doing this.
61028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Missouri
Offline
Posted 1/3/13

mystic17 wrote:

From what the article states, it's actually the state of Kansas who's trying to get him to pay child support, not the couple. It's pretty stupid to violate the regulations that come with donating sperm, which means he doesn't have to pay any form of support at all. I wonder why they're doing this.


^this.
20399 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/13 , edited 1/3/13
That's messed up. It appears to me that the state of Kansas is whats pressuring for the money and not the couple. Looks to me like they went to the state for aid, the state demanded to know who the donor was and because they didn't go through official channels when the sperm was donated he is now liable for state mandated child support. What a bunch of bullshit.
61028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Missouri
Offline
Posted 1/3/13

AsahinaInu wrote:

That's messed up. It appears to me that the state of Kansas is whats pressuring for the money and not the couple. Looks to me like they went to the state for aid, the state demanded to know who the donor was and because they didn't go through official channels when the sperm was donated he is now liable for state mandated child support. What a bunch of bullshit.


He donated the sperm via sex... probably.
77269 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
66 / M / Columbia, MO
Offline
Posted 1/3/13
I believe this is occurring in the state of Kansas. I heard this dilemma being discussed on a conservative talk radio show a few says ago. Hmmm, from reading a certain article it looks like the state of Kansas is enforcing its state constitutional interpretation of what is legal, in its mind, and what is not. Kansas forbids same sex marriage and refuses to even recognize it. Kansas does have a Defense of Marriage Act as state law which strongly suggests that marriage is a union between an opposite sex couple. So since this lesbian marriage did not conform to the parameters specified in state law the sperm donor who resides in Topeka appears to be culpable whether he wants to be, should be, or not.

My own opinion is one of the gay partners should be held responsible and contribute to the support of the child.

I typed "same sex marriage allowed in Kansas". The search engine led me to site Laws.com, subtopic: Marriage, next sub-topic:: Gay Marriage Laws in Kansas.
Taqran 
19039 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Germany
Offline
Posted 1/3/13
It seems that Kansas State legislation is requiring him to pay, claiming this money is owed on the grounds that William Moratto is the genetic father of the child. Despite having a written documented agreement with the couple, the state of Kansas is claiming this document false on the grounds that "state law [dictates] that the sperm must be donated through a licensed physician in order for the father to be free of any later financial obligations." The lesbian couple in question was filing for state benefits, as they were having financial troubles. The state, in what seems a play to avoid providing state benefits to the couple, launched the investigation in order to track down Moratto and attempt to hold him financially accountable. This article doesn't expressly imply that the lesbian couple is demanding child support from Moratto. Personally, I believe the state is wrong in this sense, as do Moratto's lawyers. To reference the article: "They cite a 2007 case in which the Kansas Supreme Court ruled against a sperm donor seeking parental rights because he did not have any such agreement with the mother, lawyers for Marotta said." The couple was correct in applying for benefits, in an attempt to honor their original agreement with Moratto. Moratto is correct in fighting forced child support imposed by the state. The only real bad guy in this story seems to be Kansas state legislation.
28097 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Toledo
Offline
Posted 1/3/13
Normally I would be totally against him being forced to pay for a child that he just donated sperm for. In this case though it was very stupid to go through craigslist. That site is nothing but trouble these days and he should have known better than to do something that has such a huge chance of changing lives forever. I didn't read the article so I don't know if his contract was done by himself or if he had legal help but he should have been advised against this and now he just has to pay the price for his decision.
Taqran 
19039 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Germany
Offline
Posted 1/3/13

justanotherguy_2005 wrote:

Normally I would be totally against him being forced to pay for a child that he just donated sperm for. In this case though it was very stupid to go through craigslist. That site is nothing but trouble these days and he should have known better than to do something that has such a huge chance of changing lives forever. I didn't read the article so I don't know if his contract was done by himself or if he had legal help but he should have been advised against this and now he just has to pay the price for his decision.



It's important to read the article on this case, especially before writing this man off as "[having] to pay the price for his decision." William Moratto, the man in question, was attempting to help the lesbian couple on the grounds of a mutual agreement. Stupid or not is a matter of opinion, but the contract defines that there was a clear understanding, which both parties attemped to uphold. It is state legislation which is causing the issue for William Moratto, not the couple.

6610 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / North Dakota
Offline
Posted 1/3/13
I actually dont believe the lesbian couple are golddiggers. I think taqran said it best. "It is state legislation which is causing the issue for William Moratto, not the couple." But we also have to acknowledge that theres not a chance in hell that this couple does not know what going on. they know full well that they are stealing from this man but there is also the possibility that the state is giving them this one and only benifit. Take his money or no money but imm not for sure if there legally allowed to keep them from welfare because they do not take the route advised.
2673 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / Sexual Chocolate
Offline
Posted 1/3/13 , edited 1/3/13
Seriously Kansas? Seriously? This is bullshit on so many levels.

As a woman, as lesbian, as an American, and as a human being I find this deeply upsetting. I hope that the couple doesn't accept the money if he loses his case. This could set a really bad precedence for any woman who wants to go the route of artificial insemination.
28097 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Toledo
Offline
Posted 1/3/13 , edited 1/3/13

Taqran wrote:


justanotherguy_2005 wrote:

Normally I would be totally against him being forced to pay for a child that he just donated sperm for. In this case though it was very stupid to go through craigslist. That site is nothing but trouble these days and he should have known better than to do something that has such a huge chance of changing lives forever. I didn't read the article so I don't know if his contract was done by himself or if he had legal help but he should have been advised against this and now he just has to pay the price for his decision.



It's important to read the article on this case, especially before writing this man off as "[having] to pay the price for his decision." William Moratto, the man in question, was attempting to help the lesbian couple on the grounds of a mutual agreement. Stupid or not is a matter of opinion, but the contract defines that there was a clear understanding, which both parties attemped to uphold. It is state legislation which is causing the issue for William Moratto, not the couple.



I didn't say it was the couple. It is his job to know the laws of the state regarding the matter before proceeding with it. Basically I am just pointing out that with such a big decision as helping to bring a life into this world he should have covered himself better than to just write up a contract and expect it to not only have no loopholes but to also be upheld by the state.
Taqran 
19039 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Germany
Offline
Posted 1/3/13 , edited 1/3/13

justanotherguy_2005 wrote:

I didn't say it was the couple. It is his job to know the laws of the state regarding the matter before proceeding with it. Basically I am just pointing out that with such a big decision as helping to bring a life into this world he should have covered himself better than to just write up a contract and expect it to not only have no loopholes but to also be upheld by the state.


Thank you for clarifying, justanotherguy_2005. : ) I sincerely hope I did not offend. The main purpose behind my response was to outline a little better the situation, as you had stated you hadn't read the article.
44745 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / So Cal
Offline
Posted 1/3/13
The Kansas government is obviously going through a divorce or maybe rough times. Maybe she got knocked up by Missouri and is mad cause Missouri won't accept responsibility, so now she's taking it out on her own children.
Either way, Kansas needs to keep it's hand out of it's children's private lives, they're grown adults, they can take care of themselves.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.