Kansas Demands Child Support Payments From Sperm Donor

test tube babyWe have been following cases where sperm donors have been held for child support or alternatively sought parental rights. The latest such case is out of Kansas where the state is pursuing a sperm donor for child support. William Marotta responded to an advertisement by a lesbian couple to donate sperm, but, after the couple split up, the state insisted on being given his name as the father and pursued him for monthly support payments.

Angela Bauer and her former partner, Jennifer Schreiner, put the advertisement on Craig’s list in March 2009 and Marotta decided to help out. Recently he was told that the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) recently compelled Bauer to reveal the name as a condition for state support. Since the state does not recognize same-sex marriage, the couple had to adopt the child. They adopted a total of eight children during over the course of their relationship. This appears the only child by artificial insemination. The couple elected to artificially inseminate Schreiner. Bauer cannot support the child without state support due to an illness. The state said that if the parents did not reveal the donor’s name, it would withhold health benefits. Marotta, a 46-year-old machinist, believes that the state is actually targeting him out of hostility for same-sex couples.

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

Marotta signed an agreement relinquishing all legal claims to the child but the state insists that this does not relieve him of child support obligations. He is fighting the agency action though he is facing high legal costs.

Source: Washington Post

68 thoughts on “Kansas Demands Child Support Payments From Sperm Donor

  1. This is an outrageous example of what happens when religious beliefs are mixed with governance issues. I hope this guy can get someone to fight this nonsense as far as it takes.

  2. No good deed goes unpunished.

    One of the unintended consequences (I assume that the state is acting out of stupidity and not malevolence) is that sperm donors will get scarce.

  3. this is where men get a REALLY raw deal….

    when I got pregnant with my daughter….
    her father and I were breaking up and he did not want a
    So, I gave him the option of being a father or
    stating on the BC Father Unknown…..

    I am ABSOLUTELY Pro Choice….
    and being Pro Choice in my eyes should go BOTH ways….

    He would have had NO SAY if I had wanted an abortion…..
    then I think it is ONLY fair that since he did not want a child..
    that he not be on the hook for child support….

    This case is so completely outrageous….
    I too hope he gets a good lawyer and beats this….

  4. I don;t know, seems to me if legal rights severed then financial included but at the same time, this person knew there was a good chance he would have a child running around in the world. The state (i.e. you and I) should not be required to pay for its upkeep.

  5. Absolutely Nick….


    I have VERY different views on this than most people….

    I NEVER want for a man to be able to force a woman to carry a fetus she is not ready to carry…..
    so I do not think it is OK to force a man to pay for a child he did not ask for…..

    women these days do some REALLY underhanded things to get pregnant….. They poke pin holes in condoms…. they take and use the contents of discarded condoms…. they LIE….
    NOPE… men should NOT have to pay in these kinds of cases…..
    and ESPECIALLY Sperm Donation…..

  6. But he did ask for the child when he donated his sperm. He knew that is what can happen when sperm and egg unite, he did not expect a tuba or a bike, he knew it could be a child with all the needs that a child entails.

  7. leejcaroll,

    But he didn’t expect a state imposed liability for helping others who could not have a child without his aid assistance and expressly stated that they didn’t want him to assume any liability for a child that they alone wanted. 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.

  8. The state should recognize the marriage and go after the real second parent of the child to pay child support. The guy should not have to.

    Another hoop for those needing help to go thru: name the father or you and your child can starve.

  9. Look at the outrageous conduct of the state agencies involved here. These agencies are filled with power-hungry abusers who virtually SELL their ability to disregard everyone’s constitutional rights and cross over borders with insane confiscatory orders. This amounts to government-backed theft. If the man could not make a contract to give away his sperm without subjecting himself to a third party’s assault on his liberty interests and property interests, there IS no law protecting his constitutional rights.

  10. bettykath :
    “Another hoop for those needing help to go thru: name the father or you and your child can starve.”


    During the 1990s in the province of New Brunswick, the then-Premier Frank McKenna tried to force women to “name the father or get cut off from welfare”.

    Single mothers responded in large numbers by saying “Frank McKenna is the father”. They shifted the burden on to him, made him prove he was not responsible for child care.

    I don’t know whether it worked or the government forced single women into more poverty, but it certainly was a poke in the eye to him, and a massive embarrassment.

  11. P Smith, Good for the single mothers. Unfortunately, this bit has been going on for so long and so widespread that it would be hard to name the man/men responsible. There are organizations who work with welfare recipients who could adopt this concept and find a man, probably one for each state, who could turn this abuse around.

  12. Well, there is a “bad girl” who could have forfeited her benefits to stop this draconian step by the govt. So there’s that.

  13. On second thought, given the state of the state these days, the targeted guys would probably go after the women, take their kids away and throw them in jail. Their defense could certainly then claim that he screwed them so why couldn’t he be the father of their child/children?

  14. If he is good for the child support and his sperm was good enough for mama then she cant contest his fitness to be the parent and therefore custody goes to him. Then he can cash in the kid at the sperm bank and be even. What comes around goes around and sauce for the goose is sperm for the gander.

  15. So, I’m a little confused here. The article and Turley refer to “sperm donor” and “artificial insemination.” So, I’m thinking doctor and clinic and in vitro fertilization. But, reading the article, it makes it clear that Kansas has a law holding sperm donors harmless from any obligations, including child support, if it’s done through a doctor or clinic. In this case, the couple and the sperm donor met through a craigs list advertisement and the article says this wasn’t through a doctor or clinic. If I’m reading correctly between the lines, then this was a do-it-yourself artificial insemination (I suppose that’s possible that it worked that way, but it’s also possible that the child was conceived naturally and they’re now saying it was artificial insemination to make a stronger case for relieving the father of child support).

    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.

  16. Maybe at the end of the day it does come down to contract law: that included in the contract is the stip[ulation that there will be no financial liability whatsoever for the child that may result as a result of the use of his contribution. (I just had a lawyer have me sign an agreement, to get back a part of my retainer the small claims court did not give me (small claims court gave me back 1/3 cause lawyer included counts barred by the statute of limitations but allowed that the 4 complaints attempted were all rife with factual errors did not require more money returned. Lawyer contacted me after and after some emailing back and forth said would return the rest of my money if I signed a contract that stipulated that ‘it will be as if the relationship never existed”. If a contract can erase a professional relationship then it should be able to adequately address financial liability possibilities in the future for the sperm donor.

  17. Waldo identified the key point: it appears that they did not follow the law regarding artificial insemination practices.

    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.

  18. “Bauer and Schreiner had signed an agreement with Marotta releasing him from all responsibility for the child. ”


    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.'”


    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.

  19. “A lesbian couple who found a sperm donor on Craigslist three years ago never meant the man to be any more than just that, and they are supporting his fight against the state’s request he pay child support.

    “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

  20. leejcarrol and others,

    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?

  21. Mahtso,

    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.

  22. GeneH,

    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.

  23. This is the apex of bureaucrats with wild hairs. The swiftest way to resolve this would be to do a negative PR campaign against the state agency that did this, naming the directors with their personal names in the news as being ones who will stoop to any level to suck money out of any citizen that offers to help others out, that they are against the lesbian couples having their own children.

    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.

  24. As Waldo pointed out, the post is a little misleading.

    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.


  25. id707,

    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.

  26. Juris,

    “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.

  27. idealist707

    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.

  28. The sperm donor should voluntarily give up his parental rights to a convicted felon on death row in Texas. The State of Kansas could not have any right to interfere in this action. After it was completed, the legal father would live in Texas. The State of Kansas would have to file for support from HIM under the UIFSA laws. Then the states of Kansas AND TEXAS would have state interests in not killing the guy. His sentence could be commuted to life without parole and everybody wins. They even save money on his last meal.

  29. GeneH,

    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.

  30. mathso,

    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.

  31. This issue seems to narrow down to a rule of insertion. There should be a Dong Rule. If the sperm went in with a dong during bang, with consent, then the owner of the dong is good for the child support obligation. If the sperm went in with an eye dropper then the squeezer of the eye dropper is good for the child support obligation. That could have been the co habitor here. Whats sauce for the goose …. is geese for a gander. Or something like that. There should be a two dongs and you’re out rule too. or Two.

  32. Some of the comments remind me of that old joke: the hardest part of being a farmer is saying “keep Washington out of my business” and “where is my crop subsidy check” in the same sentence.

  33. Gene, I must disagree, respectfully of course. A lot of heterosexual couples are raising families without the marriage license. I think that the lesbian couple wanted to get married is more of a presumption in this case rather than an inference.

    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.

  34. Juris,

    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.

  35. The proper way a woman imposes the duty of child support on a man is to insist that he marry her before donating any semen to her. If she goes ahead and consents to (fails to refuse) sexual relations with him, she acts entirely at her risk. Legislatures have tried to fix an age old problem by turning this aspect of intersexual relations on its head.

  36. The fact that the state cannot pursue thw women does not prevent the sperm donor from naming them as third party defendants under an indemnification theory.

  37. “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.” I can agree with your first seven words and then you go all muddled. Adoptions destroy genetics by law, as well any bio-parental responsibility, so not germane. Orphans have no parents except when abandoned, and if the State can find them, they will assess fees. Parents stripped of their rights are just that, stripped of all rights to that child, which in a sane world would be no responsibility either. This is the State determining who owes by way of genetics and embracing “father-mother with rights and responsibilities” even though there is no father here except by genetics, and likely no real rights unless he fights. Women have impregnated themselves from semen in condoms, the guy is still on the hook. Something really wrong there..

    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.

  38. Adoptions vitiate biology for legal parentage so it is perfectly germane to the point of legal parentage versus biological parentage which is at the heart of the issue here – the state pushing genetics over legal guardianship when the pertinent relationship for support is legal as biological relationships are vitiated all the time for various reasons including by contract.

    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.

  39. Even here you fail: “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.” You fail because this isn’t how it actually works out of wedlock, unless you mean the other legal parent is whomever the woman puts down on the birth certificate. It’s just not as simple as you write it.

    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”.

  40. The state in that situation would have gone after the legal parent. How do I know this? A friend of mine who lives in Kansas adopted the daughter of his girlfriend. The biological father didn’t care and gladly signed away his rights. When they split? The state went after my friend for child support which he gladly paid because despite their lack of formal marriage, they both considered her his daughter as did the state by the terms of the adoption. The problem in this instance is rooted in Kansas not recognizing same sex couples. That’s simply a legal fact. I don’t care whether you agree or not.

  41. What Gene said. This kind of injustice is going to go on until same gender marriage is legalized. Why MUST it list a father? How about mother and mother, or father and father? Like the book about the kid with two mommies that has all the fundies knickers in a twist.

  42. “Adoptions vitiate biology for legal parentage so it is perfectly germane to the point of legal parentage versus biological parentage which is at the heart of the issue here – the state pushing genetics over legal guardianship when the pertinent relationship for support is legal as biological relationships are vitiated all the time for various reasons including by contract. ” Nice verbiage, and nice try to change context, but the genetic issue is exactly what’s playing out here in terms of legal relationship. As well what constitutes a contract. And by a technicality of when does a sperm-donor’s relationship end as to responsibility to a child. My gibberish had a buried example of condom and private AI. Sorry you blew over it without thinking past your nose or your ego, Your response was just self-serving gibberish, but it sounded good. Vitiate, what a word.

    “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.

  43. Ariel,
    What you wrote LOOKS like English, but I have no idea what you said. I thought after sitting in a college classroom for 13 years I was fairly conversant with the English language, but apparently I was wrong.

  44. Hi, OS,

    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.

  45. Hi, OS,

    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…

  46. Ariel,
    Believe it or not, I have an English minor and am certified to teach English and Drama in three states. I do have other skills and am capable of multitasking; however, your remarks at 12:06 AM leave me scratching my head, wondering if I cut too many classes or something.

  47. Hi, OS,

    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.

  48. Hi, OS,

    ” 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.

  49. My tense of “there’s” is obviously wrong. I should pay more attention when I switch from one to many. I’ll blame it on the ease of “V”, “C, and “X”, and computers in general.

  50. As gene has stated…. It’s the sperm donor that’s on the hook…. Unless they have someone to step up to the plate….. It all boils down to who has the money in reality…. Not necessarily the ability to pay….. This is true even when the state has terminated your rights to a child…. They can still force you to pay support…. Even if tricked into pregnancy…..they will come or the money…. Unless the state has some other interest like recognizing a marriage ….. Even if its not the child of the husband…. The state will make him pay…. Why… Because they can….

  51. Mike Appleton, all LAW is off when you’re dealing with these child support agencies. They not only make up the law on their own, but they do things without court orders to start with. They send bogus paperwork to employers, and even federal agencies, that are inadequate and insufficient from a legal standpoint, and they intimidate other agencies into bending to their will, and they snatch people’s money without even the amount of paperwork and legal backing that the IRS needs to show to place a levy. They’re agencies gone mad with power. This had to happen because they were given the right to skip due process “a little bit here and there” to make it harder to get welfare, and so they were combining their powers against people who didn’t have the wherewithal to get together to get a class action against government agencies started. And they get four billion dollars a year to figure out new ways to cheat. Nobody will look into their unlawful conduct because ultimately there are judges behind the whole thing hiding their own loosey-goosey stuff that is all buried under layers of secrecy in the family courts.

  52. Ariel,
    Regarding multitasking. The ultimate multitask is to make a solo instrument approach to a busy airport in a multi-engine airplane in hardball instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) with an engine acting up, the wings icing up and only a quarter mile visibility. It is disconcerting as well to have the tower ask me if I “want equipment.” That is tower talk for calling the fire trucks out to the runway.

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

Comments are closed.