Sperm Donor Forced To Pay Child Support |
||
|
Sperm donor forced to pay child support
Bismarck.Leneth said: » From what I read and understood I am on the state's side. People are way too naive when it comes to contracts and if you do not get professional help there it is the same as any rubbish teen myth about how to have sex but not getting pregnant. You are responsible if you did it wrong~ So, just to clarify: Because they didn't go through an ill-conceived, expensive and needlessly convoluted bureaucratic process, the guy should be on the hook for doing someone a favor? Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Bismarck.Leneth said: » From what I read and understood I am on the state's side. People are way too naive when it comes to contracts and if you do not get professional help there it is the same as any rubbish teen myth about how to have sex but not getting pregnant. You are responsible if you did it wrong~ So, just to clarify: Because they didn't go through an ill-conceived, expensive and needlessly convoluted bureaucratic process, the guy should be on the hook for doing someone a favor? I didn't say anything about the women who wanted to raise a child nor about any possible way they should have gotten one. Asura.Auredant said: » Just deny the couple public assistance. Win win. The problem with this is that the only person that truly gets punished is the child, who is -- in fact -- the only person in this scenario who has done nothing wrong. Look, there are a lot of nuances involved in this case and I agree that they went about doing this poorly. They made mistakes at almost every step of the process (Craigslist to conceive, really?) and I actually think they're incredible morons all. But the problem here to me is that they're not even being taken to task for the actual bad choices they've made. They're being railroaded by a government representative/organization because they didn't needlessly pay enough money to the right people or fill out the correct paperwork. And there's a good chance their sexuality plays a part in this, which makes it even more upsetting.
[+]
Ragnarok.Ashman said: » Ramuh.Scizor said: » ***situation but he should just pay it and get the couple to give it back to him, no one loses out and everyone is happy and the state has to pay them 200$ less a month due to them having to claim the support. i really REALLY REALLY want to say they should get *** jobs and stop leeching off the government. I realise that there are people who need support but nowhere near the quantity that get it. On top of that..... Sylow's post about not having kids you can't afford. There are thousands of kids put up for adoption who get left to the system every year. If they COULD afford it just *** adopt a kid. Then you're getting a kid AND alleviating another ward of the state. Do it for the economy.
[+]
Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » I am STRONGLY against people having children they cannot afford. Therefore, in this case, I agree if they needed public assistance, they shouldn't have had the child. But based on the concepts that "everyone" (Christian majority sitting on their *** watching American Idol, etc.) feels that every American has a God-given right to children, and furthering this concept by saying that every American has at least a potential legitimate claim to public assistance as needed, I think we can all agree that the terms of the contract to which they agreed is legitimate. What would be your final solution then for someone deemed unworthy to have children that actually gets pregnant? Should they be deemed unworthy beforehand and have forced sterilization or should we wait til pregnancy, dehumanize their unborn child and just force an abortion? social welfare + bad economy = more government dependancy All I can say is well done 'mericuh, you done it again.
Carbuncle.Nuibear said: » All I can say is well done 'mericuh, you done it again. it's Kansas, by no means a representation of America as a whole. Quote: What would be your final solution then for someone deemed unworthy to have children that actually gets pregnant? Should they be deemed unworthy beforehand and have forced sterilization or should we wait til pregnancy, dehumanize their unborn child and just force an abortion? Even if I were able to completely respond to this in a public forum (for a variety of reasons, I am not), it would completely derail the thread. Suffice to say I am not in agreement with the "time-honoured" tradition of rampant, unchecked human procreation. America's legal system hates men in regards to children, divorce, and crimes against women -- with or without logical sense, reason, or rationale.
Nothing new here.
[+]
Jetackuu said: » I...don't know how to adequately respond. You realize that, despite losing the election, Mitt Romney obtained over 40% of the popular vote, right? It's not like those people just went away. The depth of the things I would need to mention to adequately respond is actually staggering to me. I'm not saying they're a true represenation of America in its entirety, but they're probably closer than both of us would like to admit. Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Jetackuu said: » I...don't know how to adequately respond. You realize that, despite losing the election, Mitt Romney obtained over 40% of the popular vote, right? It's not like those people just went away. The depth of the things I would need to mention to adequately respond is actually staggering to me. I'm not saying they're a true represenation of America in its entirety, but they're probably closer than both of us would like to admit. 40% of the people that voted, not 40% of the population, you're right in that they didn't go away, but I wouldn't say that the majority of the people are the problem. I understand full well about how much is run by that particular mind-set, it's greatly disturbing. I guess what I should say, is I don't think this had as much to do with the politics of the situation as some may believe. But nobody short of the judge knows.
Jetackuu said: » I guess what I should say, is I don't think this had as much to do with the politics of the situation as some may believe. But nobody short of the judge knows. True enough, I guess. I just can't believe that in a podunk midwest state that it didn't play at least SOME part of this. I guess you just have more faith in this country than I do.~ Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Jetackuu said: » I guess what I should say, is I don't think this had as much to do with the politics of the situation as some may believe. But nobody short of the judge knows. True enough, I guess. I just can't believe that in a podunk midwest state that it didn't play at least SOME part of this. I guess you just have more faith in this country than I do.~ not really, I just don't like to assume things. I imagine that it's highly probable, but I'd personally feel like I'm just trying to pick a fight because of my disdain for the culture. Jetackuu said: » Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Jetackuu said: » I guess what I should say, is I don't think this had as much to do with the politics of the situation as some may believe. But nobody short of the judge knows. It's probably because I'm originally from the culture myself that I'm willing to assume these things. ^^ I'm from rural Pennsylvania, but it may as well be Kansas, Kentucky, whatever. Conservative farm country is conservative farm country. This is what happens when you use turkey basters to get prego people!
Americans should really just stop having so many children.
[+]
Fenrir.Sylow said: » Leviathan.Kincard said: » I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that maybe they're falling on hard times, but it does raise suspicions about why they never went to an actual medical professional to do this procedure in the first place.
[+]
Fyi, this is far from the first case like this. The reason he is still liable is because child support is the right of the child, not the parent, and nobody can sign away another persons rights. California set precedent about ten years ago by forcing a fertility clinic to release donor records.
Odin.Jassik said: » Fyi, this is far from the first case like this. The reason he is still liable is because child support is the right of the child, not the parent, and nobody can sign away another persons rights. California set precedent about ten years ago by forcing a fertility clinic to release donor records. this isn't true. At least in VA. I'd say about 18 years ago.
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » Fyi, this is far from the first case like this. The reason he is still liable is because child support is the right of the child, not the parent, and nobody can sign away another persons rights. California set precedent about ten years ago by forcing a fertility clinic to release donor records. Actually you can sign away your parental rights with sperm donation. Especially in a state with so many same-sex couples pursuing families. Also when did CA force a clinic to release donor records I've never heard/read about that. Jetackuu said: » this isn't true. Fenrir.Sylow said: » Americans should really just stop having so many children.
[+]
I ran across this article last night. Not sure if it's actually a reputable paper in the UK or not (My guess is no by the other tabloidesque crap they seem to have.), but...
Quote: Ms. Bauer had been supporting the child but was left unable to work due to ill health. I haven't found anything about her partner's career. So, is there only one employed member of the household? Since the daughter is legally recognized as only the biological mother's and not her partner's...If it was a dual-income family beforehand (filing taxes separately), would she be receiving the benefits of a single-mother in a single-income household because of taxes purposes, along with The Sperminator's contribution, plus the income of her "wife"? (Something tells me I might not be wording this correctly.) Also, what Ashman said.
[+]
[+]
Caitsith.Zahrah said: » So, is there only one employed member of the household? Since the daughter is legally recognized as only the biological mother's and not her partner's...If it was a dual-income family beforehand (filing taxes separately), would she be receiving the benefits of a single-mother in a single-income household because of taxes purposes, along with The Sperminator's contribution, plus the income of her "wife"? (Something tells me I might not be wording this correctly.) Well when you do all that paperwork it usually asks you for additional sources of income. It definitely asks you for additional income on your taxes. So even if they both aren't recognized as the biological parents/wife-and-wife, they still have to report additional sources of income. Of course they could totally be lying on their taxes and government assistance forms. Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » Caitsith.Zahrah said: » So, is there only one employed member of the household? Since the daughter is legally recognized as only the biological mother's and not her partner's...If it was a dual-income family beforehand (filing taxes separately), would she be receiving the benefits of a single-mother in a single-income household because of taxes purposes, along with The Sperminator's contribution, plus the income of her "wife"? (Something tells me I might not be wording this correctly.) Well when you do all that paperwork it usually asks you for additional sources of income. It definitely asks you for additional income on your taxes. So even if they both aren't recognized as the biological parents/wife-and-wife, they still have to report additional sources of income. Of course they could totally be lying on their taxes and government assistance forms. I just assumed they would file separately. I know you have the "additional sources of income" part...Hold on...The last part is what I'm wondering, but I need to mull this over for a minute. I can't even think right now TBH. Can we get an accountant in here? Sad part is not so much the couples situation, nor the fact that this man now needs to pay some form of child support.... more like, where will this kid be 5, 10, 20 years from now and how *** up will he end up? What a nasty cycle of new generation~
Makes me believe that this....  ... is truly one day possible if its not already taking form.
[+]
Caitsith.Zahrah said: » I just assumed they would file separately. I know you have the "additional sources of income" part...Hold on...The last part is what I'm wondering, but I need to mull this over for a minute. I can't even think right now TBH. Can we get an accountant in here? Well they have to file separately their state doesn't recognize them as a couple. However, just because you file separately doesn't mean one doesn't have to report additional sources of income They could easily be lying and doing tax/government assistance-fraud. However, I would think with media scrutiny they wouldn't be that stupid. |
||
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|
||
