Kansas Sues Sperm Donor For Child Support

William Marotta thought his responsibility ended after his donation of sperm to a lesbian couple, but the State of Kansas feels differently.

The state of Kansas is attempting to force a sperm donor to pay child support for a child conceived by a lesbian couple, Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner through artificial insemination. The donor, William Marotta signed away any and all paternal rights when he donated the sperm to the couple in 2009. The Kansas City Star reports,

The agreement also called for Bauer and Schreiner to hold Marotta harmless “for any child support payments demanded of him by any other person or entity, public or private, including any district attorney’s office or other state or county agency, regardless of the circumstances or said demand.”

After the couple separated, Schreiner who is the birth mother filed for state assistance at which time she was required to name the father of the child. It was after this that a petition was filed on behalf of the Department of Children and Families requesting a ruling that Marotta is the father of Schreiner’s child and owes a duty to support her.

Although the Kansas Supreme Court has denied rights to sperm donors in the past, the attorney for the state asserts that it is state law that a licensed physician performs the insemination. Marotta however argues that he had no reason to believe that a medical professional would not be artificially inseminating Schreiner with the sperm he donated.

If the state manages to win its case against Marotta, they will be setting a dangerous precedence for future cases in which a woman who chooses to be inseminated may go after the donor for financial support, essentially making him a father and not a donor. If a sperm donor is only protected under the state statute for an insemination performed by a licensed medical professional then any woman could essentially have sperm donations delivered to her home, inseminate herself and then go after the donor for support.  It could also make it possible for sperm donors to sue for parental rights if their donations produce offspring.

Do you think states should be allowed to go after sperm donors for child support if the child has been on assistance?

Photo: Wikimedia commons

About Kathryn DeHoyos

Kathryn DeHoyos currently resides on the outskirts of Austin, TX. She has 2 beautiful children, and is very happily un-married to her life partner DJ.


  1. Thankyou for that

  2. The Rights of the Child to have a natural life are eroded and outweighed by f*ckwit individuals(of BOTH genders- regardless of sexual bents) who haven’t the brains to take responsibilities(moral AND financial) for the issue of their testes and ovaries. I call that child abuse. And I challenge the Brain Police monitors to publish this comment as freedom of opinion is more important than risk of ‘offense’. Otherwise it’s a waste of time this Comments facility isn’t it?!

  3. Get religious bigotry out of government … Legalize Atheism & human love …. Tax all exempt property & give the revenue to existing tax payers

  4. Marriage Equality could include equal rights of all children chosen to be born by willing moms

  5. This story has nothing to do with so called MENS RIGHTS …. KANSAS is not going to shut down fertility clinics …… If names are known Kansas is not going to allow male avoidance of paternity…. The Daddy deserves frequent and routine visitation ….. The lesbian who abandoned this mom & child MUST ALSO PAY CHILD SUPPORT if Brownback can burn his obscene bible

  6. I don’t know any names … Only the doctor knows …. This fool defendant abused by both Kansas & the lesbian couple should pay for his child …. Fore knowledge is the critical fact …. Guys out there ONLY DEAL TO DOCTORS not irrational women unstable to care for a child

  7. Are dozens of posters above brain dead ? I was paid in cash to be a surrogate father…both blood & semen for medical use assisting fertility …. I was told only bone marrow / organ donation would be reason to reverse my confidentiality agreement…. This private NON_professional deal by reckless lesbians & the male legal victim executed a void & voidable contract…. My children could be 28 & 30 by now …. in good health likely due to my good DNA both my natural born daughters 37 & 18 have excellent health educations & looks…. Years past usually med students got paid by doctors to cure a couples infertility …. Allowing unstable people to buy sperm is the problem here

  8. courage the cowardly dog says:

    The issue for me is relieving the taxpayer. I have empathy for the sperm donor. We charge ahead with this bold new frontier without thinking through the consequences of permitting this kind of thing and then when it goes awry we look to the taxpayer to pick up the tab. Anytime there is no entity to take responsibility you can be assured the taxpayer will be the resource to which we turn to and then we wonder why our taxes are so high.

    • Again, “what about teh taxpayerz” is, for me anyway, not a reason to put an undue burden on someone for the rest of their lives, when they have done nothing wrong.

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        So lets put that burden on you. Let’s take it out of your paycheck since you are so reluctant to put it on the responsible party. That is the problem with this country right now, an unwillingness to hold those responsible for their actions and shifting the consequences of those actions to others who have no responsibility. You seem willing to pay for this– I say go for it, just don’t ask me to.

        • The donor is NOT the responsible party.

          If you’re so upset about the taxpayers, lobby to change the law to allow same sex marriage. Do not attempt to foist a legal obligation on someone who was agreed by all the parties involved to not have a financial responsibility.

          • courage the cowardly dog says:

            Apparently the STate of Kansas feels differently because they are going after the donor rightly or wrongly. Quite frankly I’d rather it be him than me. I think he assumed a risk even if he didn’t fully appreciate that risk.

          • courage the cowardly dog says:

            You say all parties involved agreed to not hold the donor responsible. Don’t you think society at large ie the State maybe a party with an interest, because it seems they are now and they were never consulted. The guy didn’t consult a lawyer (he is now), he never consulted a doctor, he never consulted the State’s Child Protection agency, he never asked any questions. He is about to engage in contributing to the creation of life, he wasn’t buying a car (and my bet is he has done more invesitgation in his contemplation of buying a car than he did with regard to this transaction). This was a completely private deal that failed to consider the effect on the community at large. Maybe that should have been done in the first place. Call me crazy, but contributing to the creation of a life seems like a pretty weighty decision. that was not terribly throught through in this instance.

            • Then call for new laws controlling donor insemination. Don’t ask to set a precedent that will unduly hurt a particular individual.

              • courage the cowardly dog says:

                “Don’t ask to set a precedent that will unduly hurt a particular individual.”

                Even if the particular individual in question did not conduct his due diligence when it came to a question of creating life? How many of these situations have to occur before you will say enough, the taxpayer shouldn’t be bearing the burden arising out of an individual’s failure to act with due diligence?

                • What due diligence? He signed a contract, end of story.

                  What possible new law could this create? That sperm donors are responsible for any children conceived with their sperm? Because if so that will put artificial insemination out of business – creating a lot more misery than the poor taxpayers having to foot the bill.

                  The sensible law is to recognize same sex marriage and allow same sex partners to adopt their partners’ biological offspring.

                  I’m amazed at how conservatives are forever warning of the nanny state – except when the nanny state is enforcing conservative values.

                  • courage the cowardly dog says:

                    He signed a contract. Did he understand the legal ramifications of the contract? If he didn’t consult a lawyer and he isn’t one himself he probably didn’t understand the legal ramifications of the contract. I am not a family lawyer however had he come to me I would have told him that the non-child bearing lesbian partner had no legal or biological connection to the child and that though he had a “hold harmless clause” that required the bio mom and her partner to defend and indemnify him from anybody claiming he had liability with regard to this child that that clause did not necessarily prevent someone from making a claim against him and that at best it required the bio mom and her lesbian partner to provide him with a defense to any such claims that might be made against him, but that he may be required to retain counsel to enforce that provision and that the hold harmless clause was not a magic bullet against claims made against him. Before you sign a contract it is a good idea to consult a lawyer–perhaps small transactions it may not be necessary, but I wouldn’t call participating in the creation of life a “small transaction”. So by not consulting a lawyer he did not do his due diligence.

                  • courage the cowardly dog says:

                    Conservatives believe that the State should be there to protect the defenseless, such as unborn children, but stay the hell out of the way of adults because they believe that most adults have the wherewithal to take care of themselves.

                    • “the State should be there to protect the defenseless, such as unborn children”

                      Then why the objection to having the state provide for the child?

                    • courage the cowardly dog says:

                      O M G!!! Because that is a case of the state paying the bills for a financially capable person who bears responsibility for this child. It is his genetic child.

              • courage the cowardly dog says:

                BTW, Court issued precedents do create new law and so that is exactly what I am advocating here.

  9. wellokaythen says:

    This is one of those areas where the laws still need to get worked out, clearly. I don’t think the legal system is fully prepared to deal with legal issues about artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, etc.

    Whatever the courts decide, what I would like to see is consistency and gender neutrality. Whether you provide the sperm, the egg, or the uterus, you should have equal responsibility or freedom, certainly after the kid is born. [I won’t hold my breath on that, but I am capable of hope.]

    If the courts find that a sperm donor is liable for child support, then so be it. Then that means he gets equal parental rights as well. He shouldn’t be given all the responsibility and none of the rights of parenthood. If the state says that the child is his, then he gets to spend as much time with the child as he wants. He gets rights when it comes to custody decisions. He gets to make a legal case that the child should reside in his house.

    If the contract he signed at the sperm bank doesn’t negate his parental responsibilities, then it doesn’t negate his rights either.

    I would also demand that egg donors and sperm donors be treated exactly the same when it comes to legal liability. Fair is fair. If you donated eggs, you may be on the hook for child support in the future, just as any sperm donor. I would say being a pregnancy surrogate, even if the egg wasn’t yours, also makes you liable for child support. It’s because of your biological (though not genetic) contribution that the child exists. You totally consented to bring a child into the world, so you have liability, too. (To be fair, that means that surrogates would get at least the same rights as the bio-parents.)

  10. As well,people are saying that the non birth parent (and let’s face it that’s what she is) is now on disability. If a straight couple broke up and the father was on disability, how would this be any different?

    • courage the cowardly dog says:

      Are you referring to Social Security Disability? If so and the father(biological or putative father) were receiving Title 2 benefits the child would get a dependent benefit. To the extent that the father worked a minimum of 5 out of the previous 10 years before becoming disabled he paid into the disability system and thus his biological children would receive a dependent benefit, not so with a non-biological unmarried “parent” (not legally a parent at all). So there is a big difference.

      • And the only reason for that is that they are same sex parents. In other words, this suit is spitting in the face of both same sex parents and donors. It would be a very bad precedent if the state won.

  11. courage the cowardly dog says:

    “The donor is (correctly, IMHO) blaming politics for this.”

    I am not sure what you mean by this. What it is about is sticking the taxpayer with a financial obligation that it shouldn’t have to bear. Gay couples are particularly exposed to this risk because the need for a third party allow for the birth of the child thus extending the potential financial responsibility beyond the couple. The gay couple, who have no legally recognized relationship in Kansas were permitted to have 7 other children? Really!!??!?!?!? That stretches the bounds of credibility for me!!!

    • It’s political because Kansas is trying to say that the woman who did not give birth is not a parent.

      Frankly, I don’t care if the taxpayers are on the book for this if it prevents a terrible precedent.

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        The woman who did not give birth to the child is not a parent. She is not legally married to the woman who did give birth to the child and therefore has no legal or biological connection to the child. While you may not care whether or not the state takes your hard earned money and transfers it to this woman while a potentially financially capable biological father pays nothing in support of this child, I certainly do care. I spend a lot of hours away from my own children earning money that the state takes for what I believe are both good and not so good causes, but when someone who is capable supporting a child that they brought into this world I find it morally objectionable to shove that burden off on others. This is a slippery slope. By taking the position you have you have essentially forfeited your right to complain when the state raises your taxes to pay for these kinds of situations.

        • Well, I think eroding both donors’ and parents’ rights is worse.

          She is, for all intents and purposes, the child’s parent. The law should acknowledge that.

          • courage the cowardly dog says:

            She is not the the child’s parent. The law in Kansas, in this case, does not recognize gay marriage and so there is no legal or biological connection between the the non child bearing lesbian partner and the child. You are making up a relationship where there is none.

            • She has been more a parent to the child than the donor has.

              • courage the cowardly dog says:

                Not in a biological or legal sense of that term. Even in the sense that you seem to be using the term parent, the non child bearing lesbian partner does seem at present to be acting as a parent to the extent that she is not ponying up to support the child of her ex-partner because if she was the ex-partner would presumbably not have to apply for welfare. So whatever she may have done in the past is nullified by her present resistence to financiiallly suppor the child.

                • Then that’s a issue that needs to be resolved between them. The donor should not be involved at all.

                  • courage the cowardly dog says:

                    Absent any biological or legal connection and no legal means of compelling the non birth partner to pay support, how would you propose to do that?

  12. Two interesting things from googling this:

    1. The donor is (correctly, IMHO) blaming politics for this. This is about enforcing traditional gender roles, and it’s hurting everyone in this case.
    2. Anyone who supports donor I semination should be fighting this.
    3. Apparently the child in question is one of the couple’s EIGHT children. There us some seriously poor judgement going on here.

  13. courage the cowardly dog says:

    “He has a signed agreement and is facing a financial obligation associated with the child.”

    I am confused by this entry. The “he” here is the sperm donor who with the recipient of his “donation” and maybe the recipient’s significant other(SO) entered into a hold harmless agreement ostensibly protecting him (the sperm donor) from any financial obligation associated with the child. The problem with pursuing the non-custodial former partner is on what legal basis do can that be done. Kansas does not recognize gay marriage so no cognizable relationship exists between the bio mom/custodial mother and the non-custodial SO. There may exist a contract between the non-custodial SO and the bio sperm donor dad, but that would require the state to go after the sperm donor dad to trigger the hold harmless provisions of the contract between the non-custodial SO and the sperm donor dad whose legal right it is to enforce the hold harmless provision against the non-custodial SO thereby compelling the sperm donor dad to hire an attorney and fend off the state’s action against him while trying to enforce the legal protections of the hold harmless clause. And what if the non-custodial SO is a person of little means and no assets, then what? The taxpayer picks up the tab?????

  14. It appears that even though payment was offered, the donor turned it down,just wanting to help the couple. There were no outside medical services used so no deep pockets to go after there, whether appropriate or not.

    The obvious answer is to sue the non-custodial former partner in the relationship for the cost of child support and legal fees. He has a signed agreement and is facing a financial obligation associated with the child.

  15. wellokaythen says:

    If the state wins the case, one long-term result will be that donors will need to get paid a LOT more money for donating, in order to offset the risks of child support suits, or else the clinics will need to provide attorneys on retainer.

    This will certainly make many men even more paranoid about women. Guys will start burning their used condoms immediately after use.

    • I’m already paranoid about condoms, they break, and in some cases be used to impregnate against my will (5-10% of people I think reported contraception tampering in relationships). Give me the option to opt out of parenthood along with safe access to abortion for women and I’ll be less paranoid.

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        Hey, I have an idea. How about refraining from having sexual intercourse with women you are not prepared to enter into a fully committed marital relationship with instead of choosing to kill the product of your good times. I understand, abortion is legal, regretfully, but you are afforded the opportunity to choose the potential life you create or terminating it and since nobody really knows exactly “when life begins” (it is still very hotly debated) why not err on the side of caution and allow the life (whatever you want to call it, fetus, embryo, zygat) to develop into a human being. Just a thought.

        • Good to see someone else talking sense for a change. How many gay couples compensate for their lifestyle inadequacies through resorting to AI in order to procreate and then dodge the responsibilities/consequences of their actions as regards the balanced upbringing of their offspring?

  16. courage the cowardly dog says:

    May I suggest you read the article again more carefully. The mother is not going after the sperm donor for support. The mother having had a child by way of the sperm donor’s donation (that he got paid for) has sought welfare benefits from the state (your tax dollars, if you work) and the state is seeking from the sperm donor reimbursement for those tax dollars (money you earn, if you work) they are paying to the mother and I say Hooray for the state. Someone is looking out for me and not making me pay my hard earned money (because I do work) for something I am not responsible for. The sperm donor got paid for jerking off and now I have to pay for the product of his jerking off!?!?!?!?!?!!?!? REALLY???????!?!?!?!?!!?!?

  17. Back up a second – “then any woman could essentially have sperm donations delivered to her home, inseminate herself and then go after the donor for support.” Is this like Pizza Hut with a guarantee of timely & hot delivery 1-800-HOT- JIZZ? I had a bad arm so they demoted me to sperm delivery boy? Trust me I really don’t think you want to steal this.

  18. Doreen A Mannion says:

    This might not be an issue if 2 women could get married in Kansas; then one could sue the other for child support.

    • courage the cowardly dog says:

      Do you think that will stop the state from pursuing whatever pocket they can to pay custodial mother the welfare payments she is receiving? That assumes also that the mother’s partner had means to support the child.

  19. Follow the money-
    Why are they going off this jerk-off (boo, hiss, rimshot) when I’m sure the facility in which the insemination occurred and the health care providers have much deeper pockets?

    • courage the cowardly dog says:

      Exposing these facilities and health care providers to that kind of liability would be pretty much be the end of that industry. It is already exorbitantly expensive to do artificial insemination, adding such liability would pretty much price it out of existence, which would be fine with me. So I say go for it.

  20. courage the cowardly dog says:

    When you engage in sexual intercourse, by that action you are impliedly agreeing to the consequences of that action including, but not limited to, the birth of a human life and as a parent you have financial responsibility to that child. Virtually every state in this country who pays welfare benefits to a child seeks reimbursement from both mother and father. Don’t have kids if you can’t pay for them or if you do have them and can’t pay for them, give them up for adoption. Don’t ask the taxpayer to pick up the tab. The taxpayers had nothing to do with the birth of that child. Take responsibility.

    • Applying Courage’s principle, sperm banks should not be allowed to exist.

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        I don’t think they should actually, but that really isn’t the point I was trying to make. Say Paul Allen, the owner of the Seattle Seahawks and a multi billionaire who owns a submarine among other things had been the sperm donor, should my tax dollars really go to pay for a child that is genetically related to him??? Really? You totally miss the point. I don’t think money that I work very hard to earn at the expense of time spent away from my own children should be taken from me and given to someone who genetically is related to someone who is much more responsible for that expense than I am.

        • So, you’re only willing to pay support for children whose parents are confirmed dead? or are you unwilling to pay for ANY children whatsoever? Just trying to gauge the level of sociopathy here.

          • courage the cowardly dog says:

            What are you talking about? I am mot only willing to pay for needy children I voluntariliy contribute substantial sums for the benefit of underpriviledged kids. This is so frustrating because no matter how many times I say it it does seem to register. Where there is a responsible genetically related parent (the sperm donor and/or the AI lesbian donor recipient) who may be financially capapble of supporting the child why should i as a taxpayer pay for the support of the child? The reason why the State of Kansas has filed suit against the sperm donor is because he has the means to support the child that is his genetic child. Should we not compel him to support the child and just pay welfare benefits to the child and his/her mother? If you believe that will you also pay for the support of my kids? I mean what is the difference?

    • They didn’t have sex though did they?

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        “No fucking way, never ever. Men should even have the right to opt out of parenthood should they choose via financial/responsibility abortion.”

        I was responding to this portion of your prior remarks that men “should even have the right to opt out of parenthood”. On that point I can’t disagree with you more and a man who engages in sexual intercourse buys the responsibility of the consequences of that act.

        In the case “at bar” if you will, the woman ostensibly released the sperm donor from any further liability and when she could not financially support the child she turned to the taxpayer and I think that is wrong. Archy you want to pay for the support of that child until it turns 18, be my guest, but don’t come knocking at my door with your hand out. Especially, when the child was born into a couple who in my view should not be allowed to have children. You can’t ask me to pay for something that goes against the very core of my moral beliefs. I won’t do it. Put me in jail.

        • I think the donor couple, as in not him, should be paying for it if they can. The donor shouldn’t ever be liable.

    • They didn’t have sexual intercourse. AND BTW, you are incorrect, when a child is given welfare they don’t go after the MOTHER and FATHER actually MOST of the time they only go after the Father as the mother is receiving welfare as well.

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        ” MOST of the time ”

        Yes most of the time they go after the father. MOST is not always, so there are times they go after the mother. Early in my career I did quite a bit of pro bono Child Protection work and in instances where a state agency took a child away from a parent because the child was neglected or endangered and the parent was working the State routinely would throw a wage attachment on which ever parent had earnings to pay the money the state pays foster parents and in this day and age with so many women working it is not at all unusual for the state to attach a mother’s wages. So I am not wrong!!!

    • AnonymousDog says:

      Does the biological father have any legal recourse against the mother and her partner? he did donate his sperm on the basis that she would hold him harmless. If it were me, I’d have them joined as third-party defendants.

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        Yes that would be the proper course of action, but unless the sperm donor is a lawyer well versed in this area of the law he will have to lay down at least a $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 retainer to a lawyer to respond to this lawsuit, to file a joinder complaint, breach of contract action against the mother and her partner and to respond to interrogatories, depositions and maybe even a trial. Therefore, to all prospective sperm donors, the $150.00 you get for jerking off may not be worth it.

  21. “Do you think states should be allowed to go after sperm donors for child support if the child has been on assistance?”
    No fucking way, never ever. Men should even have the right to opt out of parenthood should they choose via financial/responsibility abortion.

    • wellokaythen says:

      At the very least, if the state can go after a sperm donor for money, then the sperm donor gets to use the state to sue the mother for custody of the child. If the state says the child is his, then he gets everything that goes with that. His means his.

  22. Kathryn DeHoyos says:

    Apparently you missed the fact that it is NOT the mother but the STATE who is going after the donor for child support! I don’t see where you get anything about an “inflated sense of entitlement” at all actually. But hey, thanks for commenting anyway!

    • courage the cowardly dog says:

      You mean the taxpayer is going after the father after the mother availed herself of welfare benefits. I don’t believe the taxpayer should bear the burden of the mother’s decision to have a child. As is stated in the Kansas City Star article, the mother agreed to “hold the father harmless against claims made against him by anybody with regard to the financial responsibility of the child.” The mother agreed to do that and now she wants the taxpayer to pick up the tab for a child that I don’t think she had the right to bear. You can force homosexual parents down my throat, but don’t ask me to pay for it too.

      • wellokaythen says:

        Not sure why this message ended with a reference to gay parents. Obviously the issues are much bigger than that. Lesbians aren’t the only women who artificially inseminate themselves. Are you suggesting that the taxpayer should pay for hetero women who have kids this way but not pay for gay women who have kids this way? Lots of luck having a government agency in charge of figuring out which mothers are gay and which aren’t.

        • courage the cowardly dog says:

          I think you totally missed the point. In Kansas as is true in most states, gay marriage is not recognized. While there are other ways of having children, such as surrogacy, artificial insemination is one that is frequently used by gay couples, particularly lesbians to have a child, as was the case referenced in the article. One of the women in this couple was artificially inseminated, the other was not and since the birth mother was the one who ultimately applied for welfare benefits I have to assume that the birth mother’s “partner” never adopted the child and as such has not legal or biological relationship to the child and thus no legal obligation to support, whereas the theoretically, the biological father does, hold harmless clause notwithstanding. With heterosexual couples, since they can legally marry, if the legally married heterosexual mother were to be artificially inseminated while she was married and the husband were to subsequently leave her he could be held legally liable for the financial responsibility of the child and mom and child would not become the financial burden of the taxpayer, whereas with a gay couple that is much more likely to happen. I think as a matter of public policy we should protect the taxpayer from having to shoulder such a burden just so someone can enjoy their sexual preference. That is why I referenced gay couples. When they have children there is a smaller accessible pool of responsible resources to raise the child and thus in the event of abandonment by a partner the child is much more likely to become the financial burden of the taxpayer. As matter of policy we should discourage that.

          • wellokaythen says:

            I see your point, I just think that it’s off the point. My point was that the last sentence of the earlier message was somewhat off topic. There was something about ramming gay parents down someone’s throat but not paying for it or something. Sounded quite fellatial, actually, but I have a smutty mind.

            For one thing, “gay parents” and “gay spouses” are not the same thing. Under law, marriage and parenthood are related but not the same thing. You can get married and not have children, and you can have children without getting married. Whether or not a gay couple can get married is *maybe* a related issue, but not really the issue here. If gay rights have anything to do with this case, more important would be whether or not they can adopt. I’m not sure about the law in Kansas, but if the mother in this case was married to a man other than the bio-dad and then got divorced, would her ex then be liable for child support? I don’t think so.

            Whether or not she’s married has nothing to do with the final outcome here. The merits of the case are essentially the same whether the mother is a lesbian or not or whether she’s married or not. The key question is the legal relationship among the child, the biological father, and the mother. We could just as easily imagine her married to an infertile husband, pregnant from artificial insemination, and divorced, and the issues would be the same.

            My point is that, although this case naturally brings up people’s feelings about gay marriage, the fact that the mother is a lesbian seems to be rather beside the point. She could have had the procedure done whether she was legally married to a woman or not.

            • Courage the cowardly dog says:

              I can’t tell whether you are purposely being obtuse or whether you really are missing my point. It is not a matter of whether or no an individual has the capacity to be artificially inseminated(AI) it is a question of whether society has a public policy interest in preventing gay couples from having children by means of AI and I submit that they do and the referenced case supports my assertion. Why? Because gay marriage is not legal the partner of the AI mother has no legal or biological relationship to the child, whereas the husband of a AI woman in a heterosexual couple has a legal relationship to the child by virtue of the and he may be compelled to pay child support and the partner of the AI lesbian mother cannot leaving the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

            • courage the cowardly dog says:

              It is not beside the point at all. In a heteosexual married couple the husband of an AI woman can be liable for the support of the child produced as a result of the AI. The partner of a AI lesbian woman cannot by virtue of the absence of any legal or biological connection between the AI lesbian’s partner and the child ultimately increasing the chances that the taxpayer will foot the support bill for the child produced by an AI lesbian mother.

  23. Obviously not. There is no consideration for justice in this case–only an inflated sense of entitlement on the part of the divorced custodial mother, who has decided “SOMEBODY has to pay for me and my child.”

    This is why the men’s rights movement exists, and why it will always be needed.

    • Believe me Copyleft what you describe here most certainly does happen. And such things most certainly do justify the existence of the MRM.

      However this THIS TIME its the court system that is the pushing to force him to pay the support, not the moms.

      But as I said the type of situation you describe does happen (in fact it is happening somewhere in the UK right now where a gay man donated sperm to a couple and the mom then turned around and tried to come after him for child support). It’s that that is not what’s happening here.

Speak Your Mind