Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Explore Premium Audio Fire TV Stick Sun Care Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis UniOrlando Best Camping & Hiking Gear in Outdoors STEM
Customer Discussions > Romance forum

Is He responsible?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 108 posts in this discussion
Posted on Jan 3, 2013 6:27:00 PM PST
L. Burns says:
<<It's only found non binding now because the state wants $$. >>

I am sure that you are correct. It still amazes me how stoopid people can be though when it comes to some very major, life-altering issues. You are offering to help people create a human being. Maybe you could put a little thought and research into the matter? Just from skimming a couple of news articles I gather that there are some red flags surrounding the situation (I got a bit of an Octomom vibe). So while I think this could possibly set a scary legal precedent, I don't have much sympathy for Bozo the Donor.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 3, 2013 6:12:22 PM PST
Yes, but that state found a similar contract binding in so far as the father lost parental rights. It's only found non binding now because the state wants $$. I bet if he asked for parental rights in addition to the monetary obligations he'd be strictly out of luck.

This ruling would also seem to affect friends who provide sperm for infertile couples or anyone who provides sperm outside of the anonymity of a Sperm Bank that's then provided by the Dr.

As for Craigslight - that just boggles the mind...

Posted on Jan 3, 2013 6:07:52 PM PST
L. Burns says:
I guess the moral of that story is don't offer your sperm to someone on Craigslist!

Seriously, while I think it's ridiculous for the State to seek support from the donor, he really was a bit of an idjit to enter into this agreement without knowing all the facts. Not every contract you sign is legally binding. What was he thinking?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 3, 2013 5:52:36 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 3, 2013 5:53:44 PM PST
That's about it. It's huge stretch of a technicality though that seems designated just to protect anonymous donors via Sperm Banks or maybe just Sperm Banks and & Doctors having a monopoly on providing sperm. The state had no issue upholding a private legal agreement keeping a prior sperm donor father from having any custodial rights.

It's really all about the money and the rationale is the same reason fathers are held financially responsible even when they are not biologically the father and tricked via fraud by the mother into believing they were.

Posted on Jan 3, 2013 5:43:33 PM PST
L. Burns says:
If I'm reading this correctly, the state is trying to hold him responsible because the sperm donation was not made through a physician. It *looks* like the donor would have been protected against any financial/support claims if the parties involved had gone through a physician rather than entering into a private arrangement.

So I guess the State's stand is that while the couple raising the child may have agreed to waive any rights to financial assistance from the donor, they (the State of Kansas) did not enter into any such agreement. Now that they (the State) are being asked to provide financial aid they have the right to seek support from the sperm donor? Do I have that right?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 3, 2013 5:27:29 PM PST
>>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<<

Nice consistency there.

Once again it goes to show the state will go to any lengths to assure they aren't the one's paying for a child. The mothers here aren't suing for support but the state that doesn't wasn't to provide financial assistance.

Posted on Jan 3, 2013 4:51:09 PM PST
Dog Lover says:
Here we go. I knew this would happen some day.

http://news.yahoo.com/child-support-claim-rankles-sperm-donor-lesbian-couple-014725388.html

DL

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 6, 2012 9:58:06 AM PST
Reader in NJ says:
I read that the couple collected about $22K in donations to help them with the legal fees. Meanwhile, the father is a solider, with very little money and his lawyer said that he had to pay his own way to Utah for the court hearings. If there was a legtimate place to donate money to help the father, I would certainly send something.

Just hope that this process does not get drawn out with appeals, etc.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2012 11:15:48 PM PST
RgReader says:
It is a good thing the baby is so young. I'm sure the father is thankful he found her before she was old enough to understand it all.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2012 7:43:07 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 5, 2012 7:45:21 AM PST
I think Utah has laws against prosecuting a mother for lying about a father in adoptions - it's part of the heavily slanted anti biological father/pro adoption stance in Utah. In this case the only person she seems to have substantially lied to is her husband. The adoption agency and the adoptive parents knew he had not terminated his rights and went ahead anyway - which again for Utah agencies doesn't seem out of the ordinary. The only thing unusual was that they were married. Also out of the blue after trying to track her and his child down she called him feeling guilty and told him what she did so at least she feels some guilt unlike the agency or adoptive parents..

It's just inexplicable that when he finally found out where his daughter was and contacted the agency stonewalled him even though they knew he had never consented to the adoption. Only when contacted by a lawyer asking him to agree to an adoption did he find out where his child was. He refused and demanded his child. In response the adoptive parents went through with the adoption anyway claiming that he had abandoned his child when he was ordered by the army to report for duty in another state as a Drill Sergent and the only reason he wasn't in Texas for her birth was because she was a couple of weeks premature. Knowing all this they then dragged this out in court for another year and a half.

I can't consider these people loving parents since they're responsible for any separation and transitional pain this child will have and have actively denied her being with her father. They have fought against him seeing his child so he has only met her twice. These people don't want to cooperate with a court order for a transition period, instead they want to want retain custody as they drag this case into appeal while libeling the father on their website as they collect thousands in donations from same thinking religious people who think two adoptive parents are better then one single biological parent. Because of that I'd shorten the transition period to a few weeks because any more time with these people will only be more damaging and make the transition more traumatic. Luckily at under two the child is still at an easier stage to transfer parenting - a couple years older and would be far harder on the child.

Even with all the adoption shenanigans I might have some sympathy for these people if they were a childless couple that had longed to have a child so much they weren't thinking clearly but they have five other children and their big stance seems to be she's theirs because god told them so.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 4, 2012 11:55:40 PM PST
RgReader says:
I read about this earlier. The "adoptive" parents were invoking God. Made me ashamed "Christians" would be so lacking in compassion and dismissive of stealing.
Why isn't the birth mother in jail for fraud or whatever else?

Posted on Dec 4, 2012 5:33:09 PM PST
cathyr says:
While I'm not going to argue with anything that has been said here - some very wise and thoughtful posters hereabouts - I have to say "what about the child?". A whole lot of legal decisions and moves are made "in the best interests of the child".

For example, a child who has been in a loving home for over 2 years cannot be expected to make a satisfactory adjustment if the judge was to say "now, send the child to live with the father the loving adoptive parents have been bad mouthing, never to have any contact with them again, TODAY". Surely a 60 day adjustment period (all things being equal with time to get to know the father, counsellors involved, etc) would be a better transition?

And when it comes to "oops I got pregnant", it has in the past been assumed the child is better off having a relationship with both parents, as well as the fact a single mother is *still* worse off financially than a single father. If they were both involved in the creation of the child, *for the child's sake* should they both be involved in the rearing/payment of that child?

I know I'm talking Perfect World here. But when we discuss the pregnancy and fall-out we have to remember there is an innocent third party involved who has no say in when/where/how this creation occurred. That party should be considered in all discussions about the future.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 4, 2012 5:24:25 PM PST
Reader in NJ says:
Totally agree with you. Those people knew that were adopting a child whose father didn't agree to the adoption and yet they went through with it. And, they are bad mouthing the father for not sending them toys? I wish the judge told them to give the child to the father now -- not in 60 days.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 4, 2012 5:13:16 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 4, 2012 5:15:24 PM PST
It looks like the only reason he even won so "easily" (just two years) is because they were married. Utah is supposedly the go to state for illegal adoptions and the loss of paternal rights.

http://www.9news.com/news/article/267332/0/Some-Utah-adoption-agencies-coach-mothers-to-take-rights-from-fathers-

====================

He had employees from his law firm called adoption agencies at random. They posed as a woman asking about the process for an expectant mom from another state. The woman said her sister was unexpectedly pregnant, unmarried and wanted to place the child, but the birth father did not.

Hutchins recorded those conversations.

One agency said, "If he's going to just be a total pain in the butt, then we can definitely just not have him involved at all."

Another said, "I'd say literally over 99 percent of the time the guys just get caught up in it and everything, and then they find out they're gonna have to pay $30,000 in legal fees, they're just like, 'Whatever, never mind.'"

"Many adoption agency actually coach on what they should say and what they should do and what they shouldn't say and what they shouldn't do in order to keep birth fathers in the dark," Hutchins said.

On the recordings, a counselor said, "Well, [the birth mother] won't have to worry about [the birth father]. Let's just put it that way."

Another said, "You can tell the birth father anything after you give birth; might be easier to tell the birth father that you were in an accident, and the baby died."

There are recordings of some agencies promising cash bonuses to birth mothers who come to Utah to deliver and place their child.

"She would actually go home with some money in her pocket," one agent said on a recording.

9NEWS heard audio of three agencies that promised to pay airline tickets, travel expenses and put the woman in a furnished apartment until the baby was born. One offered what they called "final placement money."

"It's usually about $3,000," a woman with an agency said.

Another said, "We will give you an envelope of cash when you place, and you can spend that however you want."

Only one agency that was called would not pay anything, saying they had to be very clear that no one was trying to buy a baby.

"To be really honest, our agency, we really follow adoption laws ... but not all other agencies, I hate to say it, but do just have different ethical, moral standards than we do," the agency member said.

=================================

Yikes.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 4, 2012 4:59:56 PM PST
and they are still fighting it...I feel sorry for the little girl

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 4, 2012 4:52:55 PM PST
Surreal. Even more so that the case to get her back went on for two years with the adoptive parents refusing to return his child even though it was clearly a fraudulent adoption and he had never given up his legal rights and they knew this *before* the adoption. How is this anything but kidnapping/human trafficking by the mother, the adoption agency and the adoptive parents.

More details just make it more horrific

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55373764-78/achane-adoption-bland-child.html.csp?page=1

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 4, 2012 4:25:19 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 4, 2012 4:25:44 PM PST
Dog Lover says:
Now SEE!!

This is precisely the kind of thing I was talking about earlier in this thread. Even worse, in this case, as they were married. I can't believe any judge would have approved that adoption in the first place and it is amazing to me that an adoption service can place a child without any judge hearing that decision.

For Pete's sake,

DL

Posted on Dec 4, 2012 3:51:16 PM PST
HJ Leonard says:
I know that this thread is getting stale, but I thought this article was an interesting add to the conversation:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/mom-puts-baby-adoption-without-telling-dad-182916205.html

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2012 5:04:04 PM PST
and maybe that is a social commentary on society - that fact that individuals just accept that in general there is so much emphasis places on sex/sexualization of individuals

take teh girls in Massachusettes who were involved in the pregnancy pact a few years ago (2008 - I think)...how many of those boys are being held responsible for their actions, or how many got away and not paying since they were underage; why did the school not teach sex ed (and I do believe that there is a strong correlation between the lack of sex ed and the rate of teen pregnancies) - even though correlation does not imply causation

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2012 4:33:29 PM PST
Bill Bee says:
Deanna - Of course I agree with you. But extending that idea would mean you should not risk having a child unless you can support it. In other words, don't have sex unless you are ready to support children. Somehow, I think people will not stop having sex for this reason.

Life is a risk. Innocent people, even innocent children, get hurt in the awful mess we call life. Everytime you get behind the wheel of a car, you risk death or dismemberment. As Kurt Vonnegut would say, "And so it goes." - Bill

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2012 4:06:47 PM PST
but at the same time, there is no guarantee that said father will be around for the next 18 years to provide - they could be killed in a car accident, end up in a vegetative state, be in prison with no income...I guess, in general, I am of the belief, if you can't possibly afford to support a child on your own (for basic necessities), then should you be having a child to begin with...

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2012 3:49:18 PM PST
Bill Bee says:
Rashell - That is my understanding too. Today, there is no reason for a man living in the Western world and probably in many other places to, to pay child support on a child that is not his. Except in the case of married couples. Many states still have laws that an child born during the marriage is presumed to be his and some may still say this is the case even if he proves it is not. All of this is designed to protect children and to h*ll with the hapless or idiotic parents. Which I think is a good policy choice.

Deanna - You might make the choice to not seek support from the father, but in all too many cases there is no choice to make. Without support from the grudging father, the child will be raised in poverty. In that case, he is going to have to contribute, no matter what his intentions. - Bill

Posted on Nov 14, 2012 3:34:17 PM PST
@Deanna: Typically in these cases (where the parents are not married) a DNA test is required in order for paternity to be proven before any type of support can be imposed. That way no man can be held responsible for a child that isn't his. However, in the case of a married couple, the man would actually have to prove the baby ISN'T his.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2012 2:55:09 PM PST
HJ Leonard says:
;)

It was meant to be satirical, BTW.

However, I do think that it could resolve the issue of the 'decision of whether to have or have not,' up front. Sex, first and foremost, and then whatever may result.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2012 2:53:40 PM PST
but why should he - she lied and he has to deal with her lies - and if that is the case, paternity test aside, how does he know for sure it is his, I mean, most of us have probably watched Jerry Spring/Maury etc...with the she says he is the father of my child, he says he isn't...and how often does it come back that she doesn't know (or has several guys on the hook)...I know that is scraping the bottom of the barrel, but it happens - what if he did provide for her and the child in the form of child support and then when the child is 16/17/18 and he finds out is isn't his - should he be able to be provided compensation for what he has been through the past 16 years...or can she get away with that...

...IDK, I guess maybe because I know that if I were to get pregnant in any scenario - while I would let the guy know obviously, if he wasn't interested, **I** wouldn't make any demands on him - but then I am financially stable enough that I can do that

wow, I sound totally jaded...lol!
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Romance forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Read fresh new romance stories - and tell the writers which parts you love!
25 May 2, 2016
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
152 Feb 5, 2016
Biker Romance Part 2 6773 28 minutes ago
PET PEEVES! Things that make you go Argghhhhhhh! AUTHORS: please kindly note 831 29 minutes ago
Hero is Crazy in Love and Crazy Jealous/Possessive 6 1368 43 minutes ago
World of Romance. . . Rants & Raves. . . Thread #5 3932 48 minutes ago
Hilarious mistakes in (mostly self-published) books 9965 1 hour ago
Help: can't remember this shifter book 11 1 hour ago
Looking for historical in Scotland, the hero thinks heroine tried to Kill him 1 1 hour ago
The 2nd Bargain Kindle romance books that are also GOOD ... please, no promos in this thread 4896 1 hour ago
Loan Me Thread V. 7 1715 2 hours ago
*** Coffee Shop - Let's Chat About Life And Our Books, Both Current And Planning To Read, All In The Name Of Living HEA *** 8624 2 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Romance forum
Participants:  27
Total posts:  108
Initial post:  Nov 12, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 3, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions