State trying to make sperm donor pay child support

[StrangeSox]

Generally because the right to support is the child's and the child isn't there to agree. The entire child support system is to assure the child has adequate support. It isn't "for" the parent.

 

Of course there is an exception for donors that are done through recognized channels. Another situation I am aware of is a couple I know married after the husband had a vasectomy. At the time she didn't think she wanted kids. Later she did. He did not, but eventually agreed. They used a sperm donor. Later, since they were married when the child was conceived, he was responsible for child support, same as if the child was adopted.

 

So why shouldn't a notarized legal contract at the time of the donation be part of the recognized channels?

[southsider2k5]

Did you miss where this did not happen with any medical oversight? I agree that for anonymous donations or ones that are conducted through established legal medical channels the sperm or egg donor should not be held responsible.

 

This is different. When you recognize fertilization that occurs outside of established medical procedures then you force women to argue that there was sex involved to receive support. Any dead beat dad could say he just donated the sperm and that the woman later, without his consent, self fertilized. That is a dangerous precedent.

 

They had legal documents drawn up at the time of the donation. This isn't a grey thing. It is pretty black or white. The intent was never there for this man to be involved in the child process past his donation.

[Texsox]

why couldn't the donor have a contract drawn up and notarized at the time of donation?

 

Generally because the right to support is the child's and the child isn't there to agree. The entire child support system is to assure the child has adequate support. It isn't "for" the parent.

 

Of course there is an exception for donors that are done through recognized channels. Another situation I am aware of is a couple I know married after the husband had a vasectomy. At the time she didn't think she wanted kids. Later she did. He did not, but eventually agreed. They used a sperm donor. Later, since they were married when the child was conceived, he was responsible for child support, same as if the child was adopted.

[Texsox]

They had legal documents drawn up at the time of the donation. This isn't a grey thing. It is pretty black or white. The intent was never there for this man to be involved in the child process past his donation.

 

You can draw up any contract you like but if it is contrary to the law it isn't valid.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

You can draw up any contract you like but if it is contrary to the law it isn't valid.

 

And if you start suing sperm donors, you are going to scare off a lot of them, taking away families only chances at natural childbirth.

[Texsox]

And if you start suing sperm donors, you are going to scare off a lot of them, taking away families only chances at natural childbirth.

 

I support the exclusion for fertilization that go through recognized medical channels. I believe we should scare off situations like this.

 

Would you allow a contract between a wife and a husband when he does not want kids but will agree only if he would not be responsible for child support if they break up? How would that be different than using a sperm donor?

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Apparently you can't have your egg and inseminate it too, at least in KS.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/03/...E90201J20130103

 

Lawyers for Marotta argue that he had no parental rights because of his agreement with the couple and cannot be held financially responsible.

 

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.