Single mum hopes ad will help her have second child
Story here.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11253304
I’m not sure how this would work for the father of the first child.
Does he get to pay for the mother and both children? Does the state get to pay for the baby that derives from the sperm donor? Or should the mother pay for this one? Maybe the sperm donor should front up with a few bucks and a free house for this woman?
You know I really don’t think the state had this situation in mind when they thought of ways to pay for the children (and mothers lifestyle choices) of solo parent families.
Woman who was facing a two-year wait for donor says she is in a race against time.
(Same link as Lukenz gave above)
……..
Process for NZ donors
“¢ Sperm donation is not commercialised in New Zealand, making it illegal to pay a sperm donor. And a child conceived through donation has the right to identifying details at 18.
“¢ The process for a donor involves a comprehensive health questionnaire, blood screening for HIV, hepatitis and genetic disorders, counselling including with the donor’s partner, banking the sperm over several months, and a final round of blood screening.
“¢ The donor can withdraw consent right up until fertilisation with an egg or insemination.
“¢ The aim is to make up to five families from one donor.
“¢ Donors can be between 18 and 50 but preferably younger than 45, when sperm quality declines.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Is sufficient responsibility to the future child being shown?
Just paying a $500.00 fee doesn’t answer all relevant questions about protecting the future of the child.
Solo mothers do not have as successful record at caring for children, as married couples (or even solo fathers who are usually older than solo mothers).
The jury is still out on same sex couples, but their record is generally not so far behind married couples (or solo fathers).
In this instance, the fact that it would be the woman’s second child gives some reassurance. The first child presumably hasn’t been removed from her?
I am not meaning to make a big issue about solo mothers and their relationships as such.
However, if this lady is not able to form or sustain a relationship with an adult (woman or man), then this alone is at least a warning sign – in terms of relationship skills and possibly resources for caring for a child.
There is a substantial link between ability to form and sustain adult intimate relationships and being able to constructively parent a child. Similar also for resources, which are a not negligible factor in responsible parenting.
Even if this lady just formed a daily, stable, cooperative, shall we say economic sharing relationship, with a capable adult woman or man, then the child is more likely to see satisfactory parenting skills and resources, through life’s ups and downs.
I would make similar comments if any man wanted to embark deliberately on solo parenting.
If a successful married woman or man becomes a widow or widower, then resources might be a minor issue, but they are likely to have the same skills as any married parent. (Unless they murdered the other parent..)
Lets look more carefully at responsibility in choosing to be a parent.
Does the familycaught$ support responsibility and good parenting skills and children receiving the best that two parents can provide?
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 12th May 2014 @ 12:39 pm
What a selfish bloody bitch.
She knowingly chooses to bring a child into the world with only one parent. Just to fulfill her own biological desire.
Is the sperm donor liable for child support? If not, who is?
If a single man wanted to father a child and become a solo parent, raising that child by themselves, what process is there for them getting an egg donor and/or surrogate mother?
Comment by ih8selfishpeople — Mon 12th May 2014 @ 1:19 pm
Because this is a lifestyle choice and not a ‘whoops I got pregnant’. I think the mother should not be able to claim a state red cent for this new baby. Or at least the donor should pay.
One interesting point is the lack of male donors. A quick google of ‘sperm donor made to pay child support’ brings up 932,000 hits in 0.29 seconds. An alarming result for any man.
Comment by Lukenz — Mon 12th May 2014 @ 2:33 pm
Regardless of what the law says, and I’m sure it is deliberately vague, the IRD and family court would have no hesitation in using the power of the state to force the donor to pay child support. Nobody in their right mind should be a sperm donor in the current climate, I think I tried to comment on one of those Stuff blogs a couple of times but the moderator didn’t let it through – I wonder if the women who write these articles also get to moderate comments?
Comment by Daniel — Mon 12th May 2014 @ 2:48 pm
Totally agree , Now they want to be given that stuff , you can be sure the government will happily enforce child support,where’s the fun in that for the guys lolz.
Comment by Dominic da Silva — Mon 12th May 2014 @ 3:01 pm
The companies target 18 year old men. Often students. These guys are too young and naive to realise the risks they are taking and the problems in society that they are contributing towards.
The age for consent for sperm donation should be raised to 28 and it should be spelt out to them that there is nothing to prevent a future government from making them liable for child support. Just be cause it isn’t law now – doesn’t mean that it wont happen with 18 years.
Comment by Vman — Mon 12th May 2014 @ 8:27 pm
Guys read the act before you let paranoia and imaginations run away on you.
Frome Child Support act, definition of parent (and hence a liable person for Child Support).
Where-
(a)a child is conceived as a result of any AHR procedure to which Part 2 of the Status of Children Act 1969 applies; and
(b)a person involved in that procedure is not the mother of the child, or a person who has the rights and liabilities of a parent of the child, in terms of that Act,-
that person shall not be a parent of the child for the purposes of this Act.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Mon 12th May 2014 @ 8:48 pm
Sole parenthood.
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 12th May 2014 @ 9:20 pm
Not sure if this also is a sole mother, but it reminds us how sensible it is to believe mothers can be trusted to be sole parents and indeed that they should be encouraged and paid to do so by the state through the financial enslavement of men.
If a father behaved as either this mother or the #8 one CYFS would mount a permanent campaign against him to ensure he never legally cared for children again. For these mothers however, their chances are good of a pussy pass.
For a similar male offender, the police comments and tone of the news articles would likely refer to his stupidity, irresponsibility and/or selfishness. For these women we are told in one case that the policeman said “Personally I’m appalled at that kind of behaviour” (as if he understands that others wouldn’t be so quick to jump to judgement), and in the other no comment is made about the character of the woman, only the bare facts are provided.
For a similar male offender, the journalist would almost certainly have sought comment from the children’s mother. But when it comes to each of these mothers’ misbehaviour, never mind any father’s comments, no mention whatsoever is made of fathers as if they don’t exist or aren’t worthy of consideration!
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 12th May 2014 @ 9:53 pm
Hey guys it’s been a while,
I googled ‘sperm donor pays child support’ and read a story of how sperm donors don’t pay child support in NZ.
So it seems to me that if women force men out of thier lives and more importantly the lives of thier children then they are no more then sperm donors. Why are we all paying CS?
Just saying…
Comment by too tired — Tue 13th May 2014 @ 5:44 am
#8 and #9 where were the children’s fathers?
Were the women overstressed due to lack of support from the fathers?
I have heard so many women say “I am all the children need”, happily and stupidly ignoring that married couples usually have at least 1 working, tax paying parent (in other words these women just demand financial support from “elsewhere”.)
Women who try to bring up children unpartnered, greatly increase risks of mental illness and personality disorder in their children. Diversity of parenting is important, towards protecting children from these problems. Sure you can point to some ok children of solo parents, but you can also point to jails full of fraudsters, murderers, rapists who were victims first of all of solo mothers.
So, back to why were these women not receiving support from the father of the children?
DPB encourages mothers with poor mental health to kick out the fathers and greatly increases the risks to the children.
We now have 30 years worth of statistics.
How slow to respond sensible are we as a society?
What was he role of familycaught$ in creating the circumstances that led to these child dangerous situations?
I suspect that familycaught$ unprofessional self-serving decisions were a major factor in endangering these children?
Were these judges acting in accordance with legislation?
If not, then it is critically important that they are jailed or shout at quickly.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 13th May 2014 @ 9:13 am
An old school friend said to me a couple of days ago, of her past husband and father of their child “I ditched him”.
That’s it. She deliberately and cold-heartedly decided her son did not need a two-parent family. He did not need a full-time father and role-model. He was arbitrarily dismissed of his bounden duty to not only his wife, but also his son. Like throwing out a broken tea-cup.
Such a man should not be obligated to pay CS-tax; such a woman should not be entitled to DPB.
If she is so sure that her son does not need an active father, let her put her money where her mouth is, and not rely on state-ordered or state-provided financial support to fill the financial gap.
Comment by OMG You're (&*)^*( — Tue 13th May 2014 @ 6:37 pm
#12: Well said. And research shows that the majority of family break-ups are based primarily on the woman’s decision to ditch the man. This is actively encouraged by feminist groups, Women’s Refuge (on the basis of any dissatisfaction the woman might feel about her male partner), the ready availability of the DPB, her legal ability to seize half or more of the assets the ditched man earned (often long before meeting her), the state’s role as ongoing thief from males on behalf of females, and her confidence that she will almost certainly retain day-to-day care of any children and not have to suffer the trauma of substantially losing her parenting role, unlike the traumatized father.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Tue 13th May 2014 @ 10:00 pm
#7 Allan thanks for that, it certainly says it in black and white. The law however is based on what is written down in the books but it can be modified by case law based on judgements made in test cases, I’m saying I wouldn’t trust the law to give full protection.
I remember a case a few years ago where a stepfather of a disabled teenager was being hounded by IRD for child support on some ridiculous basis, it was before I had a personal interest in the subject so I’m not sure of the details or what happened in the end.
Comment by Daniel — Thu 15th May 2014 @ 1:51 pm
#7 Allan, there is nothing to prevent that clause being dropped next year. Then any sperm donor would be liable from that point on. In fact there isn’t anything to prevent it being made retrospective. We live in a society where men do not have reproductive rights and the ideology is anti-male.
The sperm donor is not paid and he is risking 18+ years of his life on the basis that the law might not be changed. For what? It’s reckless and exploiting the kind heartedness of naive young men.
If the current law is such a safe thing for the future reproductive rights of men, then there should be no issue with limiting sperm donors to divorced men. These are men who have some life experiences to be able to make an informed decision. See how many donors they get then.
Comment by Vman — Thu 15th May 2014 @ 3:32 pm
The rights to childbirth.
Do you think that we can dictate to anouther person that they should not be allowed to have children?
Think of a perdantic argument pertaining to the act of Genocide. The Charles Darwin, Mathematics argument, the one that prevented the church from persuing putting a rope round his neck.
What if being a mother is what drives her self worth, that were there is no willing participants for a consensual pregnancy.
Do we say you cant have children. That your DNA should by the compulsion of consent, be taken from you and mankinds future. What if you lifes experiences does leed you to a position were you hate men, cant trust men, or what ever else leeds you to not be in our traditional image of the family, one involving the raising of children.
Does that meen the person cant have children? They are going to act in contempt to this, and we men pick up the pieces, just to be beaten down by them. She will leave victims in her wake, burden us the taxpayer, burden the child.
Doner sperm allows these women to act not in contempt of Charles Darwin, but to take his advice that over millenia the human gene pool can be improved. Strict investigations to the DNA of the doner shifts all those 1% things that Charles Darwin talked about in his mathematical argument. Is this better than a women whos desires to be a mum will cause her to target some male too stupid, too drunk, too damaged to defend themselves. Gauranteed DPB. How does that positively improve the human gene pool in comparison?
By implication does that say that every man and women has the minimum right to have two children? Half thier DNA to the first child, and half thier DNA to the next child (please ignore the obvious error). Does that meen that we can exterminate her DNA as an individual? just because our experiences, our suffering is imposed on her as guilty.
It takes a community to raise a child.
Men should not live in fear of being stiched up
Doners should not live in fear
Women should not live in fear of being childless
Just as men should not fear that they will too.
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 4th July 2014 @ 8:58 am