• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dad must pay child support for 3 kids that aren't his: Court rules

No, it makes no difference at all when thinking about the question. Taking up the role of fatherhood is not the same as actually being the father of a child. As for your question, no, I don't.

Sperm Donor

VS

Father

The later is who gives a damn about you
The former is the one who doesn't
 
And once again, he is NOT their father. Not legally, biologically or adoptive. I've seen it happen first hand, he's not entitled to custody unless the biologicals sign off or have their parental rights terminated.

He was legally their father if he was listed on the Birth Certificate as such. He is their father in every sense except for sperm.
 
Well, he's NOT the parent now is he? Not legally. So he shouldn't have to (again legally) continue with the financial support. And he might not have had concerns over paternity until they were embroiled in the divorce. This wouldn't be the first time some party was surprised in a divorce.

As to that last, legally speaking he is not the "only father they have", he's not even one of the fathers they have. He's nothing (legally) but the guy who has been mandated to pay.

Did he sign the birth certificate?

If he did, he is the legal parent.

If he raised these kids for more than a decade, and he isn't a parent?
 
At exactly what month is the cutoff where you become permanently financially liable for the children of someone you were with?

1 month? 6 months? 6 years?

If you were legally the father, which he was, there is no cutoff. If you are not legally the father, none at all.
 
No, I'm not. The obligation I've been taking about is the LEGAL obligation of the biological parents and you know it. Not to mention it's you who made the offensive suggestion in the first place.

If the biological fathers want to contest parentage they can proceed legally. The courts cannot instigate a case AGAINST them - which would begin with a case against the mother to get her to confess who they were (if she even knows)

That's not on trial, here - biological 'obligations' were not taken to court . . . they either ruled he supported his children that he's been a father to all these years - or he didn't.

You're looking into something entirely different - an entirely different set of laws and circumstances govern those other things and the court cannot instigate their own case.
 
Do you think bio parents should pay all expenses of the adoptive parents they give their child to?

If not, then yes, it does make a difference.

Combining gametes does not make someone a parent. It just makes them someone who had with sex without birth control.

And again, I'll point out the case currently in the courts in Kansas, where a sperm donor friend of a lesbian couple is the father of the couple's 3 year old daughter, in sperm only, but the state is claiming he has responsibility for the financial needs of the daughter now that the lesbian couple is seeking social assistance from the state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/kansas-sperm-donor-is-ordered-to-pay-support.html?_r=0

Seems to me that after 50 years of demands for equal rights for women, courts have determined that they are incapable of caring for their own offspring and require the help and financial support of a man whether that man is the father of their children or not.
 
Did he sign the birth certificate?

We don't know that.

If he did, he is the legal parent.

I'm not sure about that (again legally). At the time of birth, the mother can have any name put in that box.

If he raised these kids for more than a decade, and he isn't a parent?

If I live with my girlfriend and her kids in a state that doesn't have common law marriage and we split up, do I have parental rights (legally)? Regardless, he may once have been a parent to these children (legally), but no longer. He has no parental rights any longer (with the three).
 
And again, I'll point out the case currently in the courts in Kansas, where a sperm donor friend of a lesbian couple is the father of the couple's 3 year old daughter, in sperm only, but the state is claiming he has responsibility for the financial needs of the daughter now that the lesbian couple is seeking social assistance from the state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/kansas-sperm-donor-is-ordered-to-pay-support.html?_r=0


I'd agree with you that a sperm donor should not be responsible for child support.

Look at it the other way though, if the lesbians split up, would one be liable for child support? Even though she (obviously) is not the biological father?
 
And again, I'll point out the case currently in the courts in Kansas, where a sperm donor friend of a lesbian couple is the father of the couple's 3 year old daughter, in sperm only, but the state is claiming he has responsibility for the financial needs of the daughter now that the lesbian couple is seeking social assistance from the state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/kansas-sperm-donor-is-ordered-to-pay-support.html?_r=0

Seems to me that after 50 years of demands for equal rights for women, courts have determined that they are incapable of caring for their own offspring and require the help and financial support of a man whether that man is the father of their children or not.

The reason it's in court is because it is not the done thing; the lesbian couple brought the case.

And I fully believe they should lose.

Kansas is hardly on the pulse of the Western world, so I don't really think that statement stands.
 
At exactly what month is the cutoff where you become permanently financially liable for the children of someone you were with?

1 month? 6 months? 6 years?

Perhaps we need a parental abortion law where a father can abort his fatherhood of a non-biological child within 6 months of finding out. Women couldn't possibly oppose such a "pro-choice" option, could they?
 
At exactly what month is the cutoff where you become permanently financially liable for the children of someone you were with?

1 month? 6 months? 6 years?

The moment where you allow the child to have your last name.
 
We don't know that.

I'm not sure about that (again legally). At the time of birth, the mother can have any name put in that box.

I don't know, but if he didn't, this case would already be over. And how would she keep it secret for all these years if she wouldn't let him sign?

But if HE signs it (and it must be his signature -- the woman can't write the name in), he is legally responsible.

If I live with my girlfriend and her kids in a state that doesn't have common law marriage and we split up, do I have parental rights (legally)? Regardless, he may once have been a parent to these children (legally), but no longer. He has no parental rights any longer (with the three).

No, you don't, unless you took some kind of other legal action to accept parentage.

He is the legal parent if he signed his name. It's that simple.
 
If the biological fathers want to contest parentage they can proceed legally. The courts cannot instigate a case AGAINST them - which would begin with a case against the mother to get her to confess who they were (if she even knows)

That's not on trial, here - biological 'obligations' were not taken to court . . . they either ruled he supported his children that he's been a father to all these years - or he didn't.

You're looking into something entirely different - an entirely different set of laws and circumstances govern those other things and the court cannot instigate their own case.

First of all, a court can direct the DA to open a case. They do it all the time with deadbeat dads, which is what the court should have done here for the biological fathers of the three.

We're not sure of how or why this court ruled as it did. Could be Canadian law, but I doubt it, otherwise we'd be hearing about a lot of Canadian ex-boyfriends paying for children that weren't theirs by biology or adoption.
 
I don't see the problem here. :shrug:

If the guy isn't the father of the kids, he just isn't the father of the kids. Acting in the role of a father doesn't change that.

It absolutely does matter. If he acted as the parent then he is legally liable. Courts and the law always put the welfare of the children ahead of the adults. Men who obviously weren't the child's parent but allowed the woman and child to live with for some time have been liable for child support.
 
Perhaps we need a parental abortion law where a father can abort his fatherhood of a non-biological child within 6 months of finding out. Women couldn't possibly oppose such a "pro-choice" option, could they?

As a pro-choice woman, I think so, although I would prefer that take place before birth in order to avoid early bonding maladjustment of the child, and also so the woman can augment her decisions to fit a changing scenario.
 
And again, I'll point out the case currently in the courts in Kansas, where a sperm donor friend of a lesbian couple is the father of the couple's 3 year old daughter, in sperm only, but the state is claiming he has responsibility for the financial needs of the daughter now that the lesbian couple is seeking social assistance from the state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/kansas-sperm-donor-is-ordered-to-pay-support.html?_r=0

Seems to me that after 50 years of demands for equal rights for women, courts have determined that they are incapable of caring for their own offspring and require the help and financial support of a man whether that man is the father of their children or not.
here is the salient excerpt from that article:
The state says that because he did not work through a clinic or doctor, as state law requires, he can be held responsible ...
there is a thread on this situation in the forum
every unmarried father obligated to pay child support for the child resulting from their sperm would insist they were merely non-medically assisted sperm donors and therefor not obligated to incur child support had this case been decided in the opposite direction
 
I'd agree with you that a sperm donor should not be responsible for child support.

Look at it the other way though, if the lesbians split up, would one be liable for child support? Even though she (obviously) is not the biological father?

According to you, yes, both would be, because the "father" figure in the lesbian couple has been a father to the child for all her 3 years of life and is named on the birth certificate. You can't claim that a lesbian or gay couple is the equivalent of a straight couple when it comes to raising children and then fall back on gender stereotypes when the going gets tough.
 
The reason it's in court is because it is not the done thing; the lesbian couple brought the case.

And I fully believe they should lose.

Kansas is hardly on the pulse of the Western world, so I don't really think that statement stands.

The lesbian couple did not bring the case - the state did - the lesbian couple actually opposes the state going after the sperm donor for support.
 
It makes all the difference in the world. That's why "bio father" is a common term and "adoptive father" isn't. We usually just call the latter "father."

No, the bio father can take up the role of fatherhood, but some random boyfriend later on can not just become the father by some completely socially created event as living together.

This isn't much different than the question I posed. Yes, he didn't walk into it knowingly, and the woman is obviously a pretty crappy person for not saying anything, but if he had doubt that should have been brought up right away, not a decade later.

Perhaps he shouldn't have waited, but why should he be punished for that?
 
The lesbian couple did not bring the case - the state did - the lesbian couple actually opposes the state going after the sperm donor for support.

Huh, must have been thinking of some other case. There have been a couple revolving around sperm donors lately.

Well, again, I would hardly call Kansas the beacon of Western thought.
 
I don't know, but if he didn't, this case would already be over. And how would she keep it secret for all these years if she wouldn't let him sign?

But if HE signs it (and it must be his signature -- the woman can't write the name in), he is legally responsible.



No, you don't, unless you took some kind of other legal action to accept parentage.

He is the legal parent if he signed his name. It's that simple.

Don't know where you were born, but a signature on a birth certificate of both parents is not a requirement in every state (or any I'm aware of). The father box, that's filled out by the nurse in charge and they ASK whomever is there for the info.

But even if he did sign, that is invalidated by the fact that it is not true. It's not a contract.
 
Women are far better actors than men and could easily fool a jury more so than a seasoned jurist. That said, some decisions of family court are beyond what normal people consider reasonable.


Perhaps, but I think most who've gone through the cookie cutter system that is family court, we (I'd) much prefer to take my chances with a jury of common sense citizens. :)


Tim-
 
As a pro-choice woman, I think so, although I would prefer that take place before birth in order to avoid early bonding maladjustment of the child, and also so the woman can augment her decisions to fit a changing scenario.

That would be impossible to do in this case since even the mother didn't know her husband wasn't the father of the three other children until the father had the paternity tests done during the divorce proceedings.
 
Back
Top Bottom