--------------
*Update*
Apparently one of the partners in this lesbian arrangement lied to the government by telling them she didn't know the identity of the sperm donor, despite the sperm donor contract at issue.
The Kansas "Department for Children" is indeed claiming the contract violates a public purpose, as I initially suggested: "Wednesday’s filing by the DCF argues the sperm donor contract overlooks 'the well-established law in this state that a person cannot contract away his or her obligations to support their child.' The right for support belongs to the child, the filing says, not the parents." Notice that last claim. We can probably agree that the child has a right to support from parents, but that isn't the issue of dispute. The issue is, who has the OBLIGATION to support the child, and on what basis?
*end of update*
------------------------------------------------------------
Just a couple of points. First, notice that the idea of paternity, which is predicated on the idea that the father of the child is responsible for the child's financial support because stay-at-home moms of a bygone era did not work, has been extended to be an obligation of the father under any and all circumstances.
Apparently one of the partners in this lesbian arrangement lied to the government by telling them she didn't know the identity of the sperm donor, despite the sperm donor contract at issue.
The Kansas "Department for Children" is indeed claiming the contract violates a public purpose, as I initially suggested: "Wednesday’s filing by the DCF argues the sperm donor contract overlooks 'the well-established law in this state that a person cannot contract away his or her obligations to support their child.' The right for support belongs to the child, the filing says, not the parents." Notice that last claim. We can probably agree that the child has a right to support from parents, but that isn't the issue of dispute. The issue is, who has the OBLIGATION to support the child, and on what basis?
*end of update*
------------------------------------------------------------
Just a couple of points. First, notice that the idea of paternity, which is predicated on the idea that the father of the child is responsible for the child's financial support because stay-at-home moms of a bygone era did not work, has been extended to be an obligation of the father under any and all circumstances.
The thin justification offered by Ms. de Rocha is particularly egregious. She asserts that because the state has had to pay, that money has to be recouped. I can't think of another venue where government benefits paid to someone has created an obligation to pay it back. In fact, government has been uninterested in recovering funds, preferring to blame those who through their tax dollars provide the resources the government redistributes for not paying enough.
Let's also note the schizophrenia of the situation. We have been told how hateful we are to oppose the marriage of two people who love each other. We have been told that there is no difference between gay couples and straight couple. To even suggest that they are not functionally interchangeable is homophobic. They must be treated the same as straight couples, and are entitled to all the rights of any married couple. But here we have a lesbian couple who split, and their child ends up on the government dole. Who is held financially responsible? Not the "fully equal and interchangeable family members." No, the sperm donor is!
Last point. The legal contract between consenting parties was conveniently declared void by the government, paving the way for that same government to collect its money. The only way I can think of that a contract could be voided is if it was contrary to public purpose. Private contracts cannot negate a law. Unfortunately, the article does not say why the contract was voided, but it seems to me that it was enacted for a very reasonable purpose, in pursuit of establishing the legal status of the relationships.
Or, perhaps there is a more nefarious reason. Perhaps the lesbians are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want all the benefits and privileges and perks, but when it comes down to failing to keep the relationship intact, they jump the fence and take position on the other side of the issue. After all, why should either of them pay the $6000?
------------------
A Kansas man who answered an online ad to donate sperm to a lesbian couple is fighting the state’s efforts to force him to pay child support for the girl subsequently conceived through artificial insemination.
Department of Children and Families spokeswoman Angela de Rocha said Wednesday that the agency would not be pursuing payment if the state hadn’t provided more than $6,000 in benefits for the child after the Topeka couple split. She says the state tries to establish a child’s paternity when benefits are involved.
Court records show that the sperm donor, 46-year-old William Marotta, signed an agreement in March 2009 giving up parental rights to the then-couple. The agreement also absolves Marotta of financial responsibility. The state contends the agreement isn’t valid.
A Kansas man who answered an online ad to donate sperm to a lesbian couple is fighting the state’s efforts to force him to pay child support for the girl subsequently conceived through artificial insemination.
Department of Children and Families spokeswoman Angela de Rocha said Wednesday that the agency would not be pursuing payment if the state hadn’t provided more than $6,000 in benefits for the child after the Topeka couple split. She says the state tries to establish a child’s paternity when benefits are involved.
Court records show that the sperm donor, 46-year-old William Marotta, signed an agreement in March 2009 giving up parental rights to the then-couple. The agreement also absolves Marotta of financial responsibility. The state contends the agreement isn’t valid.
No comments:
Post a Comment