Hell, don't donate anything. I know a fellow who donated a kidney out of the goodness of his heart; all went well but now he flat can not get health insurance because of it.
This isn't the first - and it shan't be the last - time a sperm donor has been held liable for Child Support.
When it comes to Child Support, there is no jurisprudence; the law can change retroactively at any time. There is no such thing as a safe place to donate sperm - any and all areas could revert to this sort of law at any time.
AFAIK, no sperm donors who have donated anonymously via U.S. sperm banks have been held liable for ‘child support’, BUT it has happened in the UK and Canada. (And the UK has seen the result – a complete lack of sperm donors to the point that sperm bank donation pleas have sunk to the use of ‘shaming language’ in a ploy to try to goad men into being donors.) There was a case in 2009 in Massachusetts that concerned the anonymity issue: according to a story in the Boston Herald in October 2009, the single mom (who used sperm bank donor sperm) was suing the bank for the identity of the donor, contending that he had a genetic disease that her twin girls had developed. She initially claimed that her daughters “have 'potentially fatal health issues' and deserve to know their dad" (isn’t it funny how they usually have the attitude that the father is NEVER important at all?!) and that she was not interested in seeking ‘child support’. BUT while facing eviction from her London home, she flew with the twins to Boston and two weeks later, she filed a complaint in Probate and Family Court, seeking the donor's identity so he could be required to pay child support. The court ultimately refused to hear the suit, so as of yet the anonymity of sperm bank sperm donors is assured. But as we men have seen before, the laws can change on a whim of some judge, and the "guaranteed" anonymity of a sperm donor can disappear like a soap bubble.
Don't donate sperm, for the same reason that you wouldn't enter a minefield -- because ALL minefields are 'Like That'.
According to the story, it is state initiated. The "couple" split and the one stuck with the child went on public assistance. The state is recouping assistance costs from the "father", instead of from the lesbian spouse, who actually wanted the child.
Don't donate unless you go through all the (unknowable) legal hoops you need to jump through. From the sounds of it, all they'd needed to do was get a doctor to sign off on some paperwork - that shouldn't cost more than $200. In most states, I think you'd have to go through a licensed sperm bank to keep the child-support people away.
On the other hand, the kid now will have a real father.
Well boys, ya might want to also re-consider your stance on gays while you're at it. Those of you that think homosexuality is a valid alternative lifestyle need to look awful hard at this case and what/who is driving it.
What I dont understand is why the other half of the lesbian couple got off the hook? If she didnt carry the child, then isnt she the default "dad"?
If paternity fraud can nail a husband, non biological father, to the wall for child support, why isnt it applicable to lesbians? They wanted marriage laws to apply to them right?
'“In this case, quite simply, the parties failed to perform to statutory requirement of the Kansas Parentage Act in not enlisting a licensed physician at some point in the artificial insemination process, and the parties’ self-designation of (Marotta) as a sperm donor is insufficient to relieve (Marotta) of parental right and responsibilities to the child,” Mattivi wrote.'
Or if you are going to donate sperm, make sure you obey the relevant laws. Female or male, judges in this country have a real penchant for straightforwardly enforcing it.
As someone else noted, where are the cries of outrage from the gay community over this? Doesn't this ruling diminish the normalcy of gay parents that they are seeking?
Australia has the worst setup for donors, even retroactively changing the laws so only those men who donated before the mid 80s can keep their anonymity, all other men who thought they'd be anonymous are being told that the legal wording on their consent forms weren't explicit.
Here's the sort of crap the liberal media is putting forward:
If you can stand to listen to all the positive discussions people are having about "I met my daughter and it was the best experience of my life", you'll notice that the only time ANYONE brings up the privacy issue from a man's point of view is the guy who wasn't anonymous at all. If they were even mildly balanced in their reporting they'd have a guy who'd say "I met my drug abusing son/daughter who then proceeded to make my life hell and started stalking my wife and children and I've had to take out a restraining order". FYI - Australia has less than 40 active donors nationally in a country with over 11 million men. This is partly because the law is that the child has full access to your details the moment they turn 18. I actually think it's the liberal government purposely trying to dissuade men from donating, that way they can freely offer single women (yes, Australia pays for them to have IVF) and lesbians all the IVF they want - just good luck finding any donors!
Aussie Realist said... "Also, apparently the gay community has become the largest group contributing to sperm banks in Australia!"
Even though they're a 'protected minority' now, they're still males. So that means that their day to be herded into biased courts and legally robbed is coming... It may be next month, it may be next year...be assured, their turn is coming.
Remember, the Jews weren't the only "undesirables" that the Nazis put into concentration camps and fed into the ovens.
Like I said about the dude a few years ago who donated to pay his way through George Mason Law and ended up with seventy kids, it's all fun and games until they figure out you're a lawyer and go "f**k you, pay me."
Hell, don't donate anything. I know a fellow who donated a kidney out of the goodness of his heart; all went well but now he flat can not get health insurance because of it.
ReplyDeleteIt seems unlikely since even before the ACA, HIPAA required health insurance issuers to offer policies. Insurance is a scam anyway.
ReplyDeleteAs far as sperm, it is OK to donate in a more sensible state than Kansas.
Who initiated this? Did the lesbian couple sue to get child support, or is this state-initiated?
ReplyDeleteAs far as sperm, it is OK to donate in a more sensible state than Kansas.
ReplyDeleteFor now.
Laws and court rulings change. DNA is forever.
Caveat emptor.
"Commenting disabled for this story."
ReplyDeleteheh.
@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteThis isn't the first - and it shan't be the last - time a sperm donor has been held liable for Child Support.
When it comes to Child Support, there is no jurisprudence; the law can change retroactively at any time. There is no such thing as a safe place to donate sperm - any and all areas could revert to this sort of law at any time.
What Anonymous says above is misleading.
(Also note the judge was a female)
ReplyDeleteAnd you know what that means.
He should sue for custody.
ReplyDeleteVasectomy. Don't even get involved. The shady shit that people do now is astounding.
ReplyDeleteAFAIK, no sperm donors who have donated anonymously via U.S. sperm banks have been held liable for ‘child support’, BUT it has happened in the UK and Canada. (And the UK has seen the result – a complete lack of sperm donors to the point that sperm bank donation pleas have sunk to the use of ‘shaming language’ in a ploy to try to goad men into being donors.)
ReplyDeleteThere was a case in 2009 in Massachusetts that concerned the anonymity issue: according to a story in the Boston Herald in October 2009, the single mom (who used sperm bank donor sperm) was suing the bank for the identity of the donor, contending that he had a genetic disease that her twin girls had developed. She initially claimed that her daughters “have 'potentially fatal health issues' and deserve to know their dad" (isn’t it funny how they usually have the attitude that the father is NEVER important at all?!) and that she was not interested in seeking ‘child support’. BUT while facing eviction from her London home, she flew with the twins to Boston and two weeks later, she filed a complaint in Probate and Family Court, seeking the donor's identity so he could be required to pay child support.
The court ultimately refused to hear the suit, so as of yet the anonymity of sperm bank sperm donors is assured.
But as we men have seen before, the laws can change on a whim of some judge, and the "guaranteed" anonymity of a sperm donor can disappear like a soap bubble.
Don't donate sperm, for the same reason that you wouldn't enter a minefield -- because ALL minefields are 'Like That'.
ReplyDeleteAny liberal nut who donates sperm to lesbian couples deserves what he gets.
According to the story, it is state initiated. The "couple" split and the one stuck with the child went on public assistance. The state is recouping assistance costs from the "father", instead of from the lesbian spouse, who actually wanted the child.
ReplyDelete--Hale
State initiated, to recover approx. $6K.
ReplyDeleteDon't donate unless you go through all the (unknowable) legal hoops you need to jump through. From the sounds of it, all they'd needed to do was get a doctor to sign off on some paperwork - that shouldn't cost more than $200. In most states, I think you'd have to go through a licensed sperm bank to keep the child-support people away.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the kid now will have a real father.
State initiated. The couple applied for welfare, so the state stepped in to look for a "father" to make into an indentured servant.
ReplyDeleteWell boys, ya might want to also re-consider your stance on gays while you're at it. Those of you that think homosexuality is a valid alternative lifestyle need to look awful hard at this case and what/who is driving it.
ReplyDeleteWhat I dont understand is why the other half of the lesbian couple got off the hook? If she didnt carry the child, then isnt she the default "dad"?
ReplyDeleteIf paternity fraud can nail a husband, non biological father, to the wall for child support, why isnt it applicable to lesbians? They wanted marriage laws to apply to them right?
Until it isnt convenient anyways...
'“In this case, quite simply, the parties failed to perform to statutory requirement of the Kansas Parentage Act in not enlisting a licensed physician at some point in the artificial insemination process, and the parties’ self-designation of (Marotta) as a sperm donor is insufficient to relieve (Marotta) of parental right and responsibilities to the child,” Mattivi wrote.'
ReplyDeleteOr if you are going to donate sperm, make sure you obey the relevant laws. Female or male, judges in this country have a real penchant for straightforwardly enforcing it.
As someone else noted, where are the cries of outrage from the gay community over this? Doesn't this ruling diminish the normalcy of gay parents that they are seeking?
ReplyDeleteOh, wait, they're women.
Australia has the worst setup for donors, even retroactively changing the laws so only those men who donated before the mid 80s can keep their anonymity, all other men who thought they'd be anonymous are being told that the legal wording on their consent forms weren't explicit.
ReplyDeleteHere's the sort of crap the liberal media is putting forward:
Insight: Sperm Donation
If you can stand to listen to all the positive discussions people are having about "I met my daughter and it was the best experience of my life", you'll notice that the only time ANYONE brings up the privacy issue from a man's point of view is the guy who wasn't anonymous at all.
If they were even mildly balanced in their reporting they'd have a guy who'd say "I met my drug abusing son/daughter who then proceeded to make my life hell and started stalking my wife and children and I've had to take out a restraining order".
FYI - Australia has less than 40 active donors nationally in a country with over 11 million men.
This is partly because the law is that the child has full access to your details the moment they turn 18.
I actually think it's the liberal government purposely trying to dissuade men from donating, that way they can freely offer single women (yes, Australia pays for them to have IVF) and lesbians all the IVF they want - just good luck finding any donors!
Also, apparently the gay community has become the largest group contributing to sperm banks in Australia!
ReplyDeleteI wonder what the "homosexuality is in the genes" people have to say about this.
Aussie Realist said...
ReplyDelete"Also, apparently the gay community has become the largest group contributing to sperm banks in Australia!"
Even though they're a 'protected minority' now, they're still males. So that means that their day to be herded into biased courts and legally robbed is coming...
It may be next month, it may be next year...be assured, their turn is coming.
Remember, the Jews weren't the only "undesirables" that the Nazis put into concentration camps and fed into the ovens.
Like I said about the dude a few years ago who donated to pay his way through George Mason Law and ended up with seventy kids, it's all fun and games until they figure out you're a lawyer and go "f**k you, pay me."
ReplyDeletefdb
ReplyDelete