Comments on: State of Kansas hits sperm donor for child support

By: Hugo S. Cunningham

Hugo S. Cunningham — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 18:47:52 +0000

@Jim Collins–

My impression is that Kansas didn’t even ask Bauer for support, that they are for political reasons going after a sperm donor rather than the person who contracted to support the child. But I know nothing beyond the newspaper article.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:41:05 +0000

Hugo,
Is the state ignoring the marriage, or is it because under the law it doesn’t exist and they have no other choice? If the State tries to make Bauer pay support, can’t she refuse because there is no law requiring her to do so?

Is there an agreement between States to recognize marriages from other States? If so, wouldn’t this be covered in that agreement?

By: OBQuiet

OBQuiet — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 20:33:49 +0000

I wonder how this agreement was drawn up? I would think that if I paid a lawyer for this sort of advice and them ended up on the hook for ~$100k support bill, I would be expecting them to fix their mistake.

That is why we require licensing of lawyers isn’t it? To ensure the ‘quality’ of service provided?

By: Hugo S. Cunningham

Hugo S. Cunningham — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 11:21:52 +0000

@Mannie–

The natural right of child support is called “marriage.” Where marriage does not exist either explicitly or implicitly, the State may create artificial rights of support, but usually accept bounds of morality, eg not going after rape victims, sperm donors, or victims of fraud. Where no legitimate second parent is to be found, a civilized state will assume a child’s “right of support” on itself.

(In this case, there is a marriage, even if political gamesmen in the Kansas government choose to ignore it.

By: Mannie

Mannie — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 21:24:56 +0000

if this ruling goes the way of the state, men can be charged with fathering a child even though they thought they had the protection of a legal agreement with the new parents.

The child never signed the agreement. The right of support belongs to the child not to the parents.

By: wfjag

wfjag — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:03:32 +0000

Hugo, exactly what do you expect to come out of a place named “Topeka”? According to Washburn University (Topeka, Kansas) Emeritus Professor Barbara Burgess, Ph. D.:

“The word ‘Topeka’ comes from Indian words meaning a good place to dig potatoes.”
http://www.barbburgess.com/research-topics/prairie-potato-topeka/topeka-s-roots-the-prairie-potato

In other words, the citizens of Kansas were warned that their capitol was located at a place known to be one where you put your seeds in the ground, and a few months later the tubers are ready to come out. Someone has to pay for the harvest.

By: Hugo S. Cunningham

Hugo S. Cunningham — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 04:13:41 +0000

It doesn’t surprise me to see Kansas behind this travesty. They have the most immoral and grasping child-support law in the country. They even went after a 13-year-old boy who had been molested by his 18-year-old babysitter!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer
Certain Kansas politicians claim to be “pro-family” and “pro-marriage.” Isn’t it time for them to overturn a court ruling that equates child-molesting with marriage?

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:54:57 +0000

I went looking for the statute upon which the state is relying for this:

23-2208.?Presumption of paternity. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

(f)?The donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor’s wife is treated in law as if he were not the birth father of a child thereby conceived, unless agreed to in writing by the donor and the woman.

There is an agreement between Bauer / Schneider and Marotta.

The state seems to be dismissing that part of the statute and relying on the “licensed physician” part of the statute.

Marotta’s lawyer is right – if this ruling goes the way of the state, men can be charged with fathering a child even though they thought they had the protection of a legal agreement with the new parents.

By: Karen C

Karen C — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 18:16:23 +0000

This was part of the welfare reform act signed into law by Bill Clinton. Because so many children were living in poverty and getting government assistance, any woman applying for benefits has to name the father(s) of the children so that they could be made to pay child support, rather than the tax payers. In states where the father’s name isn’t required on the birth certificate, the woman has to name the father(s) (or whom she thinks may be the father) and the state pays for the paternity testing. In Texas, many a man has been grateful for this as they have been released from child support obligations with the testing (even though they were led to believe they were the father). The only way for women to avoid this happening is to not go on the public dole. Where is mom #2, what happened to her job? If mom #2 is unemployed or underemployed, why didn’t mom #1 get a part-time job to help cover?

By: Cloudesley Shovell

Cloudesley Shovell — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:57:00 +0000

Jennifer Schreiner is the mother of the child. Angela Bauer was, at the time of the sperm donation, her partner, and also signed the contract. So what happened to Angela Bauer? Is she a party? If not, why not? Is the State of Kansas attempting to hold her liable? If not, why not? That’s a giant unanswered question.