Child support about to become sperm tax in Kansas
Kansas seeks to force sperm donor to pay child support for lesbian couple’s kid.
With so called “gay marriage” on the political radar this makes interesting reading.
MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.
33 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
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.
This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.
i bet they dont want him to have visitation rights..just hand over the cash and on ya bike
Comment by Ford — Sun 30th December 2012 @ 4:37 pm
All man who lives in Kanas should never donate their sperm if they have to pay child support.
WTF is world coming to?
Sperm donor are helping those who can’t have children n government repay them with child support.
Comment by Shinhee Yi — Sun 30th December 2012 @ 5:32 pm
Another good clear case of the NEED to get rid of social welfare.
People can look after themselves and we will return to a time of real family values.
Comment by Too Tired — Sun 30th December 2012 @ 9:09 pm
Shinhee Yi – men should really think out the comsequences of allowing one of their own children to be brought up by a stranger where it is possible their child will suffer abuse, such as with a man hating woman who wants to keep the father out of the picture or a woman who just wants another child to continue collecting welfare. It is a fact that most violence against children is by women. This is likely to be even worse when you are not around as a father to give protection. Also, with the disappearing White race (soon to be under 1% of the world population), white children could easily be sold into sex slavery, the biggest sex trade that our mainstream news completely ignores. You are not just donating your sprem; you are giving away one of your own children!
Comment by Dave — Mon 31st December 2012 @ 6:51 am
What a positive decision! The guy is a Dad and should be responsible for his child’s upbringing! Why should the expense fall to be picked up by the ordinary tax payer through benefits etc to the new ‘parents’?
I have no sympathy for sperm donors and their hackneyed excuse that they were only helping childless couples to have a kid!
Of course formal adoption (in NZ at least) would remove the CS liability from any sperm donor so where is the real disincentive?
Sperm donors simply spread thier seed and walk away from thier responsibilities that the rest of us loving Dads would dearly love to have…… I pay child support why shouldn’t he or any other man like him?
Comment by Non Custodial Dad — Mon 31st December 2012 @ 6:12 pm
#5..adopting a child or adopting sperm?..either way the 2 wanted a child to raise as their own ..to take on the responsibility of parents..when the going gets tough parents cannot expect another adult to help raise the children they choose to have whether it by child adoption or sperm adoption..i think it sux they are going after this man for child support
Comment by Ford — Mon 31st December 2012 @ 7:22 pm
@dave
I hear you
That’s why I believe Man should not donate sperm full stop.
Comment by Shinhee Yi — Mon 31st December 2012 @ 11:32 pm
#3 I wonder how getting rid of Welfare can bring back the family value?
Will it get rid of child support?
Comment by Shinhee Yi — Tue 1st January 2013 @ 8:34 am
#8..without welfare women will have to stay with the men they have kids with..it will be the only way for them to survive..or get a job
Comment by Ford — Tue 1st January 2013 @ 11:54 am
9# So does it mean if both of parent are jobless family just have to starve till one of them find job?
I think Caning Welfare all together is not a the answer too all family and gender problem.
Comment by Shinhee Yi — Tue 1st January 2013 @ 1:45 pm
#10..starve,,rely on friends and family and canning welfare is not the answer but the govt are likely to do anything when it comes to money..they dont care
Comment by Ford — Tue 1st January 2013 @ 7:27 pm
11# Well I just hope that day don’t come so soon.
I don’t see how it will make this society any better probably it will only cause higher crime rate.
Comment by Shinhee Yi — Tue 1st January 2013 @ 7:47 pm
It would force people to look after thier families, it would make people think longer and harder about having children and getting married. Communities would have to act resposibly without thier safety nets. Eg If my children had children then I would look after them all with the help of the other grandparents and/or other relatives forming a community, thier would be discussions about when it’s appropriate to have children and eventually the trend would be back to having a career then marriage then children. So that they wouldn’t be a burden on thier family but in a position to help if nessassary.
This is all mute of course as we live in a selfish world.
Comment by Too Tired — Tue 1st January 2013 @ 9:01 pm
#13..the incubator baby machine feminists would scream too loud and it wont happen..women would scream abuse and hold men responsible for their plight
Comment by Ford — Tue 1st January 2013 @ 9:13 pm
I have gotten to know an ex gang member in his 30’s through my neighbourhood and sports club. He lies about almost everything and makes up lots of stories. He has never worked in his life. He’s been in jail for rape and still hasn’t paid his GD club fees. He has four children who he sees occasionally
Comment by Doug — Wed 2nd January 2013 @ 7:30 am
No wonder New Zealand is well know around the world to be heaven of Feminist and The place for woman to live.
Comment by Shinhee Yi — Wed 2nd January 2013 @ 1:00 pm
#16..even our police women who steal get let off
Comment by Ford — Wed 2nd January 2013 @ 2:46 pm
@Ford #17 Got a link for that one?
Comment by Down Under — Thu 3rd January 2013 @ 6:08 am
http://menz.org.nz/2011/emily-jane-toner-crown-prosecutor-and-thief/
or google emily jane toner or google timothy sarah..another crooked police staff member(drug manufacturer)
Comment by Ford — Thu 3rd January 2013 @ 11:35 am
Ford… a Crown Prosecutor is a lawyer, not a policewoman!
Comment by Down Under — Thu 3rd January 2013 @ 12:16 pm
Abandoning all welfare would not achieve much good, but making it much harder to get sole parent welfare would. A stand down period of 6 months would be a good start, during which family and friends would need to be relied on. (Except that where recent serious violence can be proven in a criminal Court beyond reasonable doubt to have been committed by the other parent, then a DPB could be provided immediately and/or back-dated. While proceedings are before the Court, something like a student loan could be provided, to be paid back if the allegations are dismissed.) So-called ‘child support’ also needs to be removed on the basis of equal shared care, and otherwise altered so it provides for half the actual costs of providing a basic level of care to the child, again except in particular circumstances such as when the provider partner abandons the caregiver partner. Those changes would begin to slow the destruction evident to families in western civilization, and therefore to western civilization itself.
Comment by Luther Blissett — Thu 3rd January 2013 @ 12:25 pm
as i understand it they are non sworn police staff..which makes them a cop
Comment by Ford — Thu 3rd January 2013 @ 12:29 pm
#21..id love to see the dpb abolished
Comment by Ford — Thu 3rd January 2013 @ 12:31 pm
#20..there was a policewoman who alledgedly loaned her uniforn and an impound book to her b/f to illegally seize a car..try this one
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10811552
they work on the side of the law they are cops..all be it bent ones
Comment by Ford — Thu 3rd January 2013 @ 12:34 pm
down under..you may also like to google markernest langford..x drug squad detective charged with stealing money ..aprox $8500
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10792680
want some more?
Comment by Ford — Thu 3rd January 2013 @ 12:37 pm
Non Custodial Dad: I don’t agree that just because you are required to pay so-called ‘child support’ so should sperm donors. If there was an agreement between the sperm donor and receiver that no ‘child support’ will be sought then the receiver should adhere to this. It’s little different from a woman assuring a potential partner that she is on the pill when she isn’t, or collecting a man’s sperm from a condom and injecting into her vagina without his knowledge or agreement. If the law does not protect us from dishonesty and fraud then what use is the law?
Whether the state chooses to provide welfare to parents is a separate matter for which the sperm donor is not responsible. If a sperm receiver has contracted not to seek ‘child support’ then the state could refuse to provide welfare or otherwise provide it and take responsibility for its generosity.
I would strongly advise against any man donating sperm. However, given our ‘family’ laws as they stand no man should expect to be anything more than sperm donor and long-term money machine for any woman.
Comment by Luther Blissett — Thu 3rd January 2013 @ 12:56 pm
#21
If DPB was abolished how would children be provided for if the earning parent died, was imprisoned, needed hospitalisation for say mental health issues or addition treatment?
I don’t object to the DPB for care of children (although current legislation pertcieves care as 100% or nothing which is absurd). The issues that need to be thought about are can both parents be on DPB? How should DPB be abated in shared care situations and the other caring parent’s expenses be recognised? and then there is the Child Support issue of how much reimbursment (if any) to the state should happen to repay what we all contribute for DPB. At the moment all DPB, both the support of the adult and care of children portion is available to be reimbursed to the state and hence it has a significant spousal maintenance quality to Child Support.
I think we all need to do a lot more thniking than just suggesting DPB should be abolished.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 3rd January 2013 @ 1:04 pm
#27..it might stop alot of women having babies for the income and if it were abolished..not my problem
Comment by Ford — Thu 3rd January 2013 @ 1:08 pm
Im one in the camp of the DPB should be abolished. If the earning parent (quaint term in the modern day where its not unusual for both parents to be earning.) was to die then without the DPB the gummint would have more leeway to provide a reasonable widows/er benifit.
I believe also that having such a featherbed like the DPB instead of a safety net takes away from people the need to ensure that they have made provision for things like deaths hospitalisation etc with insurances, savings and assets etc before they start bringing children into the world.
Where someone wants to split up a family then they should be financially able to do so. Not given the cash from the state and the other parent then forced to pay for their lifestyle changes.
Im against all violence and if this has been proven in a criminal court then the state can look at welfare but this shouldnt be the simple sign up and go on it like the current DPB system which again empowers people to break up a family unit on a desire for an alternate living arrangement.
Basically Im all for a reduction in state involvement in family life not more involvement. Take a look at who you are having children with, commit to a family, and not have it so easy to just up sticks and walk out when it no longer suits you, taking the children with you as your meal ticket and leaving the other parent with the bill.
Mits
Comment by Mits — Thu 3rd January 2013 @ 2:40 pm
#27: I didn’t suggest we abolish the DPB, but that we make it harder to get. I agree that there would need to be more exceptions than only proven spousal serious violence, and the situations you refer to such as death of primary earner or financial abandonment by the primary earner of the primary carer. But the exceptions would need to be limited and tight. The current situation in which women can bear children then get paid by the state to shun or trash any resulting family is ridiculous.
Comment by Luther Blissett — Thu 3rd January 2013 @ 2:48 pm
Mits #29,
I agree entirely with your very sensible and concise statement.
The perfect rebuttal to Allan #27 who like some others seems to want to tinker around the edges, instead of doing the necessary long overdue complete dismantle and downsizing rebuild like yourself.
I’m like you. I really don’t get how some folks can let themselves be so shoved around by oversized intrusive government
Thank-you and Happy New Year.
Comment by Skeptic — Thu 3rd January 2013 @ 3:27 pm
I’d glad to see some people see things similar to myself,
What I assumed should happen but was shocked wasn’t even a part of this whole situation of DPB and CS, is the inability to have your say!. We are all tared with the same brush automatically.
Start paying now! no ifs or buts, whoo cares if you want shared or full custody, your ex left you and they have the kids so start paying!
There needs to be due process (i think its called) before the paying parent is taken for all they’re worth. This might have kept my ex-wife from cheating on me and leaving so easily. She already had all the paperwork ready before I even new she was leaving. (liked having sex with both of her men I guess).
P.S. Now shes getting married to him this month woo-hoo. He dosent even know half of what happened just her innocent account lol. I’m going to tell him after the ceremony. Or I would if I thought it wouldn’t effect my kids.
Comment by Too Tired — Thu 3rd January 2013 @ 9:19 pm
#21 I agree with your approach on DPB. I hear there WINZ treat single Father with child much harshly by making it much more difficult for them to get support.
Comment by Shinhee Yi — Fri 4th January 2013 @ 1:14 pm