Sperm donor is sued by state for child support.

[Chowder Head]

A Kansas man donates his sperm to a lesbian couple and years later the man is sued by the state for back child support. He sign all parental rights away but the state says pay up.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/justice/k ... ?hpt=hp_c2

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/201 ... cnn.com%2F

[artdecades]

Signing away parental rights does not absolve someone of paying child support. However, this is just bad law.

I see that they did not follow the law in the insemination, but that is a stupid to enforce those antiquated rules anyway. Yeah, its a messed up situation, but placing the burden on him isn't going to make anything any better. If the couple wants to do it at home, why should the law be involved. I hope this is overturned.

[lawlifelgbt]

No. Just, no.

When Partner and I have kids, it'll be an anonymous donor. This is bad law overreaching into private conduct.

I also hate the implication in forcing child support- that the donor is a parent, or part of the family. Nope, nope, nope. Donor sperm or not, our kids are just that- OUR kids. If we're raising them from conception on together, I'm equally the other parent, even if it's not my genes.

[Alachantal]

What the actual fuck did I just read?

Hopefully this is overturned for this man. He just donated his sperm, he's not her parent, and it doesn't look like he's had any parental involvement with the child up until he met her by chance. This is just ridiculous.

[Stephanie66]

Why did the mother of the child name the father? Why didn't she just say she had an anonymous sperm donor and move on?

[BravaAmica]

Why did the mother of the child name the father? Why didn't she just say she had an anonymous sperm donor and move on?

THANK YOU!! Or just say, "I had a one night stand and have no idea who the father is."

[Hane]

Shouldn't this be handled something like legal adoption?

Once birth parents relinquish a child and the child is legally adopted by someone else, the adoptive parents don't have any right to shake the birth parents down for money.

[snarkykitty]

There is considerable pressure on people applying for any sort of public benefits to name any potential resource for financial assistance:

- SSI - supplemental security insurance - disability coverage based on no/low income/assets, that provides help for basic needs

- Welfare - cash

- Medicaid (state health insurance based on income/assets), Housing vouchers (you pay less than standard rent prices)

- Housing assistance (your rent is subsidized, based on your income and assets measured against anything you pay out. So if someone else is technically responsible for give you money - think alimony, child support, a structured settlement, even money owed to you that you loaned to someone - that amount could potentially be counted as an asset.

Without any legal documentation that the man was strictly a sperm donor (which, if they had gone through the expensive process which involved contracts and signatures), it will be an uphill battle to empirically "prove" it.

[lilwriter85]

Shouldn't this be handled something like legal adoption?

Once birth parents relinquish a child and the child is legally adopted by someone else, the adoptive parents don't have any right to shake the birth parents down for money.

I've been reading the blog of a gay couple who had twins through Indian surrogacy last year. The couple lives in New York and they mentioned that the non-biological father was going to adopt the twins in order to prevent legal issues in case something happens to the bio dad. Years ago, I remember a case in which a lesbian couple had a daughter and the bio mom died and the other mom didn't have any rights to the child because of the state law, but I can't remember which state it was. It could be a state law issue. On the topic of sperm donors and child support, there was a similar story about a straight single woman who used donor sperm and she hit financial problems years later and sued for child support from the donor.

[Stephanie66]

If a woman doesn't name the father, there isn't really much the state can do. If she "doesn't know", she doesn't know. They can't keep her from getting welfare because she doesn't know who the father of her child is.