With no contract, no family... The times we live in

Things you thought you'd never have to see argued about in court

from JoeUser Forums

Some things just never seem like issues you'd ever have to see our court system be involved in, but sooner or later, there the courts are helping to decide cases that will establish legal precedent for years and years to come.

Originally stumbled upon this news in the print edition of the Washington Times, but then found the original materials for this case documented here: The City Journal (Kansas City): The Incredible Shrinking Father, by Kay Hymowitz

The gist of that article is summarized right here:

Artificial insemination begets children without paternity, with troubling cultural and legal consequences.

Actually there's one more great clip here:

Well, in a Kansas trial court, Solomon rules that without a contract the twins have no father. The man who provided half of the children’s genetic material has no more relationship to them than does the taxi driver who rushed their mother to the hospital when she went into labor. Now, assuming that the supreme court upholds the decision, the state of Kansas can celebrate adding two more fatherless children to its population, and Mom can rejoice by dressing her twins in bibs—available over the Internet—proudly announcing: my daddy’s name is donor.

As you can see, interesting times we live in for sure.

So, men, it would seem that if you really intend to be involved in the life of children that you may sire that you better make sure you have a contract before handing over the reproductive materials to the women you may pass them to.

Women better be wary of this decision though as it could have repurcussions in the future for them too.  After all, with no contract between a woman and one-night stand, doesn't this precedent mean that if the one-night stand results in a pregnancy that the man would have no obligation to support the child?

I don't suppose the court that decided the original case intended that to be a result of their decision, and who knows for sure if they already have other legal protections in place for women that wind up pregnant through normal means and then have a man trying to shirk his responsibilities as the father, but it seems you can't really have one thing without the other.

politics
2,763 views 3 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
By the way, as usual, the original article is a fascinating piece and is well worth the time it would take to read and digest it all.  Please do take the time
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Kansas should get together with Pennsylvania, since Pennsylvania has ruled that a sperm donor is liable for child support!

2 extremes.

Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Kansas should get together with Pennsylvania, since Pennsylvania has ruled that a sperm donor is liable for child support!
2 extremes.

True on the extremes, though I would say that Pennsylvania is more consistent when you consider the issues of child support, unintended pregnancies, and such.  If women want to be able to hold the male half of the equation accountable, then they darned sight should be allowing for parental rights on the part of the male half.

That's what seems so odd about the Kansas case.  How could they not see their decision as potentially costing any woman that seeks child support from a man that very same support???