- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -


MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.
MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Tue 15th May 2007

Sperm donor to lesbian couple ordered to pay child support

Filed under: General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 8:24 pm

Sperm donor to lesbian couple ordered to pay child support

This is a very important child support decision. Look beyond the situation and look at what the judges are saying about child support liability.

Note in New Zealand a Mother who was divorced by her teenage daughter is having child tax extracted from her.

Regards

Scrap

8 Responses to “Sperm donor to lesbian couple ordered to pay child support”

  1. Bevan Berg says:

    The recent adage holds – sperm is money.

  2. mikeray says:

    More on the same:
    Swedish Sperm donor ordered to pay child support to a lesbian couple

    Meanwhile, in the heterosexual world,

    Quote : A woman’s promise to take charge of birth control and then not doing so remains the only form of monetary fraud … that is not only not punished, but is in fact regularly rewarded.

    Glenn Sacks : Courts have ruled that boys who were statutorily raped by older women must pay child support. Courts have ruled that when a woman has taken the semen from a condom a man used for sex with a different woman and has inserted it in herself, the man must still pay child support. Courts have ruled that when a woman has concealed her pregnancy (denying the man the right to be a father) and then sued for child support a decade later, the man must still pay child support. Courts have ruled that when a woman has deceived her husband into believing that her baby is his child, he must still pay child support.

    Sperm Donor Agrees To Pay Child Support To Ex-Girlfriend

    Man claiming stolen sperm ordered to double child support

  3. mikeray says:

    Deviating from your post but…

    More weird cases, where the man is forced into becoming a father and paying child support…

    The state Superior Court yesterday ruled that a man must pay child support to a woman who conceived twin boys with his sperm through in vitro fertilization.

    What happens to sperm in a bank when you stop paying to keep it frozen? Can your estranged wife pick up the freezing bills and use your sperm, then come after you for child support payments?

    Even underage boys who are (statutary)raped have to pay child support ?

    Colleen Hermesmann routinely provided care for Shane Seyer as a babysitter during 1987 and 1988 in Kansas, United States. When Shane Sayer was 12 years old, he was raped by his babysitter Hermesmann.
    Hermesmann was impregnated by her own assault, giving birth to a daughter, a daughter, Melanie Hermesmann, on May 30, 1989. Colleen Hermesmann took the 12-year-old to court for child support on March 8, 1991, and won. Shane was forced to pay child support of $50 per month thereafter.

    In County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J., the California Court of Appeals stated that although a 15 year old boy who was seduced by a 34 year old woman, was a victim of the 34 year old (she was prosecuted for statutory rape), the 15 year old father is obligated to pay child support to the child.

    But recently, a man’s rights were upheld and he was not forced into fatherhood.

    Ms Evans’ “last chance” appeal to keep the embryos failed when the European Court of Human Rights ruled last week that her rights to become a mother did not outweigh the rights of Mr Johnston not to become the father of her children.

  4. Stephen says:

    All the more reasons to be delighted when the male pill arrives. Next year trials in 3 countries end and companies can push to get the thing released.
    It will spawn (sorry, couldn’t resist the pun!) the next sexual revolution.

  5. Mike says:

    How out of wack is this?.
    It just means that ANY way you look at it, women get a free ride.
    I find it rather hard to believe that where a woman has impregnated herself by deception, that a court could rule that the owner of the sperm be required to pay Man Tax.
    I can see a steep decline in the number of sperm donations in future.
    The feminist court system may have just shot itself in the foot.

  6. Bevan Berg says:

    I see a step decline in little people called grandchildren.

  7. Bevan Berg says:

    The decision in essence is a good one for us. Every man in essence is his seed not his money. We should be grateful that judgements continue to enforce that. That they do so, not for the benefit of men, and children, but of the state and of money is our issue. The battle is not to be allowed to be free of our responsibility but to be free to fulfil our responsibilities. The consequences are bad because the law is wrong, but the decision is still good.

  8. Benjamin Easton says:

    James I’ll add the trail of your last comment on to this one where it is relevant to the overall issue and the competency of our ability to effect change rather than watch change and hope that it eventually gets close enough to touch.

    If you set up for a protest in Peter Dunne’s electorate, prior to the elections, I’d like to join you. I won’t protest on the streets outside judges and lawyers houses independently any more because of my “strategy and tactics”. Which are as they are and not what you can see.

    By then I would have been into court on three occassions challenging on three separate issues, two of wghich are primarily related to Child Support and the application of the law: based principlely along the lines of what Bevan has said about the ownership of soul (although he determined semen) rather than fiscal value (although he determined money).

    The relevence of this case along with many others is as you figure important where “men” need to dig into common law to arm themselves with arguments to substantiate their view in secular forums. The more “we” collate these cases into explorable circumstances the better the tactic for our spokespeople like “yourself” and “Bevan” as competant coming up against the status quo: who I figure are tiring to the old rhetoric like “Judith” and now if your skilled at what you can do… a very Gordonless “Peter”.

    Better still, as a tactic, we would be better to start to isolate the politicians set to respond to these issues, like say “Judy” Copeland. Playing their own games of divide and rule, that have disaffected dads for so long: against them.

    But that’s only my theory 🙂

    Ben.

    In the last post

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

Since May 2016 this site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

« »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar