Been there, done that, and have the cap and T-shirt.

http://www.dailykos.com/user/Otteray%20Scribe/

” I do have other skills and am capable of multitasking” , but of course, if your only skills were English and Drama, you’d likely be waiting tables (a good server at a high-end restaurant can make $100K, so maybe that’s not a bad thing). We all have skills beyond our major or minor in College, though some are restricted, even constipated, by College.

However, I’m replying more to the multitasking (which gives some indication of relative age). A good example of, and the problem with, multitasking is driving while on the cellphone and eating a hamburger. You have visual, tactile, aural, and taste all in interplay. Good multitasking, but I think the one task you should be focusing on isn’t in your ear or your mouth. Studies (oh that claim of authority by study) haven’t shown multitasking as meaning all tasks are done well, but more most tasks are done poorly. For those of you that can’t understand “all” versus “most”, the “most” means one might be done well, but all the others are likely done poorly. If you’re truly multitasking, there might be none done well.

There’s these arguments about predators, plains of Africa, and maybe butt displays, but I have no idea as to the weight of these arguments regarding focus versus multitasking and getting the job done well.

Good minor, and I mean that, and I do believe it. Drama not so much, but that’s my own past experience with Drama majors (the scripts to Grey’s Anatomy are written by a relative, it’s been all downhill).

Thanks for the specificity on comment. Which part leaves you scratching your head? I can reply, clarify, or just confuse you more, but can’t do any one of the three without more from you.

Now, an aside, IIRC you’re a cop or have been? How, as an English minor, could you deal, or have dealt, with the jargon? I have a BSChe, and hated the jargon when it went beyond what was needed by the profession to be exacting. I hate lawyer jargon, not because it isn’t needed in their profession, but because they think it is the whole of language. Dry, dessicated (ah, redundancy to make a point), stilted, and narrow language that they purport to describe the world in all its wide meaning. Luckily, it’s only in the USA that lawyers have so much sway. And they have to pay for it in student loans. A selfish and satisfying digression.

A moment of reflection leads me to ask: was my snark proportional to yours, if yours was even snark? You can easily take away my moment of guilt…

Well that impressed you.

And to which post do you refer? Sitting in a college classroom for 13 years means nothing more than you sat, and you didn’t even specify the subject. I assume you don’t mean 13 years of Mandarin.

Missed your post earlier. I agree 100%.

You sure talk a lot for not saying anything.

“This is blackmail by a state agency based on an outdated and religiously dictated definition of marriage. It has nothing to do with parental responsibility being a matter of genetics instead of legal relationship. Many genetic parents are not the legal parents of their children. If not, there where would no adoptions, no orphans and no parents stripped of their rights due to abuse and neglect. There is only one “bad guy” here and it’s the State of Kansas in moving forward with this extortion.” None of this is germane, but it is a lot of words. All of these are settled. Orphans either have no parents or have been abandoned, a silly example without clarification. Adoption is the silliest, because genetics are destroyed by adoption, and have been so decided well before our birthdates, where if both parents survive one has to sign off. You can use vitiate, or severed (much more graphic but less erudite), but still your examples are just fill. They aren’t pertinent other than “these things happen too”. It’s the genetic issue, what is AI, and what is a contract. All to be determined by the reading of that state’s laws.

“You could have simply said you agreed”, you’re a lawyer, though I think you often claim expertise outside your area given your area can’t be as large as your seeming expertise, so how many times have you said “I simply agree” or “I agree with you upon arrival, but damn I can’t agree with how you got here”? By your ego, I’d guess the latter more than the former.

There’s a reason why a podiatrist can’t claim expertise in oncology…though both are doctors. And there is a reason why lawyers shouldn’t think they have more knowledge on what goes on in practice in an area they have no practice. You have no understanding of what goes on in out-of-wedlock births. None. Your example was less than educated.

As for gibberish, thanks for the word-picture of Humpty-Dumpty with “Gene H.” where his navel should be.

What “destroy” wasn’t good enough for you? I bet you hate Hemingway.

California, as do most states, pushes every out of wedlock birth to have a father on the birth certificate, whatever name is the father and they go after whomever they can identify, wrong or not. The man identified is left proving otherwise, and no it isn’t so simple as “DNA we’re done”. If its past the contest phase (one legal part), the mother and the state can fight against genetic testing, you are the de facto father. If you’re her husband, you’re the de facto father even if she’s been gone a year (another legal part). I believe California has changed the contest phase, but this plays out in so many other states that a change in California places no burden on the argument. California is only one state among too many that do this, and it’s driven by money, both for the mother and the state, and especially by matching Federal money to the state.

If the couple were not married, AI doesn’t matter. She’s the mother, if his name is on the BC, he’s the father. If she claims a richer boyfriend, he needs lawyers.

Out-of-wedlock is what this lesbian couple was, so why wasn’t the state going after her partner by your argument? Rhetorical answer: because it takes a figurative penis and vagina to make a baby and the State still recognizes that when there is no other recourse.

In a way, I agree with you. How you got there makes so much difference. As for legalities, they are neither moral or sensible or sensical (back formulation) in this area. And too often today driven by monies, not “for the children”.

The only thing muddled here is your desperation to find something muddled, repeat what I said rephrased missing the relevance of private adoptions as contractual in nature and then act as if agreeing is original thinking on your part. You could have simply said you agreed. The rest of what you said was self-serving gibberish.

If by this “an outdated and religiously dictated definition of marriage” you mean that the other “mother” (I put that in scare quotes because I see only one real mother) is the only other adult responsible, I agree. From there your left in lesbian cases with how much the utero mother wants to exclude her partner from the child’s life. Women do a lot of gate-keeping, though in this case it reads that the mother only wanted help from the state not that she wanted to actually exclude her partner. The State pushed genetics.

I did say inferred. An inference is never better than direct evidence. As to how same-sex marriage fits in, if this had been a heterosexual couple out of wedlock who conceived via AI – even if it had been done privately – they would have gone after the legal parent, not the biological donor. I’ve lived in Kansas and dealt with their various governmental bodies. On that experience, I say bias is in play here. It’s for the courts to decide now though and I say Kansas has opened a bigger can of worms than they realize.

Also, I don’t see how same-sex marriage plays into it. Assume the donee couple were heterosexual, married or not, above, and that the nonbiological father is the one that bolted. The same argument could be made that he cannot be held liable for child support as he is not the father in the eyes of the law and that the State agency still would have pursued the sperm donor for child support.

Don’t agree with the instructions to the jury. Inferences can be made on any basis, not on the basis of law or evidence or argument.
Thus lacking any other support, they are speculations after the fact and have no basis to stand in a jury decision. IMHO.
I am not a lawyer and perhaps you are:
Otherwise let me refer you to two comments made by GeneH, see above.
I hide myself in the shadow of his greater knowledge. I am just expressing opinions, ie mouthing off. Permitted as I understand the rules.

He seemed to cover it all except as to speculation.
Since they could not marry, and could not seek lawyer support (do we know this or speculation), their intent was clear. Ie to assume a parent*s role and responsibilities. but then i am inferring/speculating again.

yeah well:
“And as info I believe that this does not give free license to free phucking men without a contract a bye on child support after DNA proof is established.”
was one of my beauties.

Your answer I could follow only partially as need visual aids to grasp the relationships…….,and maybe a law degree.

Thanks anyway. My point was only hoping that this gave no free ride to those sowing their oats in vivo while bachelors, Answer seems to be no.
I am content.

But my head is spinning. Think I will sit this one out.

Recently I was told that a jury was instructed that it could make reasonable inferences, but it could not speculate. That the insemination did not conform to Kansas law is to me a reasonable inference, not speculation. Why? Because if it did conform, Mr. Marotta would not have any legal responsibility in this matter and all three adults involved are reportedly trying to keep Mr. Marotta from such responsibility.

“Do we know the couple would have married had it been allowed in KS?”

I think that can be inferred true by their actions both before this event (adopting children together), their actions in seeking a biological child with at least part of the couple’s DNA, and their actions in support of Marotta in light of state action. They view the child as a product of their union as assisted by Marotta.

Could you clarify that statement? I’m not exactly clear on what it is you are trying to say. That this doesn’t give a pass to men without a contract? If so, then, no – this would not give a free pass on csp’s for biological fathers without a contract. The only illegality here as a technical point is not using a doctor and the legal parents being in a relationship the State of Kansas doesn’t approve of namely a homosexual marriage. It sounds like all the other bases (liability, legal guardianship, etc.) were covered in the contract which otherwise covering the intent of Kansas Law to shield sperm donors was met. It’s arguable that the contract upholds the intent of laws if not the technical formality. That formality is strictly related to doctor participation which as I pointed out above can be characterized as arbitrary and a restriction on health care options favoring the “wealthy” (e.g. those who can afford to pay for artificial insemination through a doctor). Therefore, the argument that the contract should not be voided as a matter of public policy has some merit as the substantive intent and form otherwise meets Kansas requirements.

Consider this: would this be an issue for a same sex infertile couple? Would the state pursue the legal parent or the biological parent? The legal parent. Because Kansas only recognizes heterosexual couples as married. The state is essentially ignoring the legal relationships of parents to child to focus on the biological relationship of one parent and a biological sperm donor regardless of their actual legal relationship as established by contract.

Child support is the child’s right. Thus, parents cannot contract away the right of children to look to their parents for support, and any agreement does not inhibit a later court’s power to enter a child support order.

This is an unfortunate situation and an absurd result, but one that could have been avoided had the donor consulted an experienced attorney. No good deed goes unpunished, indeed.

Gene, I agree with your post in that this result is no doubt illogical. However, I am not sure that gay marriage is a factor in this one. Do we know the couple would have married had it been allowed in KS? Had the donee couple been man and woman but not married, the state agency would most likely still had pursued the donor. Unfortuantely for the donor, your point goes toward the constiutionality of the statute, which costs legal fees to assert effectively.

From the article: “Ironically, since the state does not recognize same-sex marriage, it cannot collect child support from the women.”

Again, I am not sure the lack of same-sex marriage recognition by Kansas makes a difference or precludes the state from seeking support from the other “parent.” Had the child been legally adopted by the other “parent,” whether man or woman, the state would have been able to pursue child support against that person.

The problem would be the same even if the donee couple was man/woman, as the man in that instance would not be legally responsible for support (or have custody rights) absent the in loco parentis doctrine.

An increasing trend among state courts is to expand the in loco parentis doctrine to apply to same-sex couples. Here, it does not sound as there is any reason the state cannot seek an order under this doctrine against the noncustodial woman.

http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2011/08/nebraska-supreme-court-extends-in-loco-parentis-doctrine-to-same-sex-co-parent.html

A grass roots internet campaign would be the best and cheapest way to solve this. Keep up the phone calls demanding the directors fix this outrage. The leadership will CYA every time, they will cave to public pressure.

And as info I believe that this does not give free license to free phucking men without a contract a bye on child support after DNA proof is established.

I don’t know your law, only a little of ours.

Cam’t and don’t agree. Waldo came with a lot of assumptions based on the Craig’s list mention in the blog/article. No proof of actual circumstances, conformity with law requirements or what ever took place. Speculation only.

Support it if you will. It is your rep here. And yours only.

Hope Waldo reads this too. It concerns him also.

Seems like the only ones benefiting from contract law are lawyers, bureaucrats and judges—-with of course complaining fathers not forgotten.

Woman were made for “screwing”.
God said so in the Bible, and he did not say in what position or orifice or generally in what way.

Or did he?

“We’re kind of at a loss,” Topekan Angela Bauer, 40, said Saturday, speaking on behalf of her and her former partner, Jennifer Schreiner. “We are going to support him in whatever action he wants to go forward with.”

The Kansas Department for Children and Families has filed a child support claim against Topekan William Marotta, who provided sperm used to artificially inseminate Schreiner.” Topeka Star Ledger

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/30/kansas-sperm-donor_n_2382677.html

The argument that the contract comported with state law by has merit.

“Angela de Rocha, a spokeswoman for the Kansas Department for Children and Families, said in a statement. ‘If a sperm donor makes his contribution through a licensed physician and a child is conceived, the donor is held harmless under state statue. In cases where the parties do not go through a physician or a clinic, there remains the question of who actually is the father of a child or children.’”

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/02/3164305/state-trying-to-make-sperm-donor.html

This creates a false equivalence where “biological father” equates to “legal parent” which is not the case in this instance as the child was never his legally by terms of the agreement. The requirement that a donor be held not responsible only if a doctor is involved is arbitrary in light of that shield being created by private contract and imposing such a limitation arguably seeks to restrict the reproductive rights to people who can afford to employ a doctor. That is a distinct problem in and of itself.

There is the viable alternative of seeking the contribution of the legal but non-custodial parent’s contribution which the State of Kansas will not do because they do not want to recognize a gay marriage despite the fact that the legal guardians of the children are Bauer and Schreiner.

The State of Kansas has opened a can of worms on this one.

They may not be able to wiggle out of it.

leejcarroll’s assertion that “a contract …should be able to adequately address financial liability possibilities in the future for the sperm donor” is partially correct, but only if that contract is also in conformity with the law. As Waldo points out, the law as not followed here.

Also, the post appears to have an inaccuracy that caused me some confusion: Ms. Bauer did not request the aid, Ms. Schreiner (the biological mother) did.

This makes me reconsider whether the State of Kansas is the bad guy here. Do we want a rule where the biological father is relieved of child support simply because the biological father and mother sign a contract prospectively relieving the father of support obligations? In this case, there’s not even any mention of a written contract, so it may be that they simply had a verbal agreement that the father wouldn’t have any rights or any obligations. Would it apply only to cases of do it yourself artificial insemination or to all conceptions? Why make a distinction between the two? I don’t think it’s a good rule for the biological parents to agree between themselves about future child support, at least when it comes to the state support for the child.

In this case, part of the problem seems to be that Kansas does not recognize gay marriage. Thus, I suspect the child in question was never adopted by the non-biological mother. I think that normally when an adoption occurs the rights and obligations of the non-adopting biological parent are extinguished. That would have got this poor mechanic off the hook. But, without some formal process for relieving the biological father, which doesn’t seem to have occurred in this case, then he should generally be on the hook for child support.