Debate on Fox--Lesbian Mom Demands Child Support from Sperm Donor Dad
August 11th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
I appeared on Fox's nationally-syndicated Morning Show with Mike and Juliet last week to debate a New Mexico case where a man who had donated sperm to a lesbian couple is now on the hook for child support to the children's biological mother. The case is detailed in New Mexico Court Orders Sperm Donor to Pay Child Support (Fox News, 7/31/08):
A court battle over whether a sperm donor should pay a higher rate of child support has ended with a ruling that the man is liable because he has taken an active role in raising the children.
Kevin Zoernig had argued he was not required to pay child support because he is a sperm donor and is protected under the state's Uniform Parentage Act.
But the state Court of Appeals noted in its July 25 opinion that this was not a case involving an anonymous donor or a known donor who provided sperm to a licensed physician under an agreement in which he agreed to have no parental rights...
Zoernig agreed in 1994 to donate sperm so that Mintz and her partner at the time, Deborah Mrantz, could have a child. After the couple broke up, Zoernig fathered another child for Mintz, again as a sperm donor.
Zoernig, Mintz and Mrantz had entered into an agreement in 1994 in which the female couple would be the child's primary custodians. Zoernig would serve as a male role model but not be financially obligated to support the child.
Mintz and Zoernig entered into a similar agreement for the second child, born in 1997, court records show.
Although Mintz is the children's primary custodian, they stay with Zoernig every other weekend during the school year and half the summer. Zoernig, 50, now is married and has three children with his wife.
In February 2000, Mintz sought child support payments from Zoernig. The parties agreed the following year that Zoernig would pay $250 a month in child support, plus $50 a month toward arrears, according to court documents.
In 2004, Mintz filed a motion to raise those payments, saying her financial situation had changed. A state district judge adopted a new rate of $670 a month.
Zoernig turned to the Court of Appeals, challenging his obligation to provide any support as well as the higher rate, since the children were conceived through artificial insemination.
The appellate court said he must pay support for both children.
The court said he "enjoys the rights of parenthood," and that the agreements entered into prior to conception "that purport to absolve him of his responsibility to pay child support" are not enforceable.
In this ABC story, Mintz said "It was shocking to me when his lawyer showed up with arguments that he shouldn't have to pay child support because he was a sperm donor. It seemed quite preposterous."
There was a bit of a technical screw-up on the show, so our segment was shorter than planned, but I did get to make my basic points. My views on the case are as follows:
1) Zoernig, Mintz, and Mrantz made an agreement. Zoernig held up his end of the bargain and then some. Why is it that mothers are so often able to toss agreements aside in family court as soon as they become inconvenient?
2) Zoernig did Mintz and Mrantz a favor. Mintz returned the favor by handing Zoernig an invoice.
3) Some have dismissed the amount of child support that Mintz is demanding of Zoernig as insignificant. Well, when it was $250, I can understand that. Once the child support went up to $670 a month -- remember that's 670 post-tax dollars -- it's no longer insignificant. Zoernig is a musician who apparently does not make much money. Also, he is married and has three children of his own. This is doubtlessly causing him problems with his family.
4) The mother and those who sympathize with her, including two of the guests on the show, argue that Zoernig is enjoying the rights of a parent without any of the responsibilities. When we're speaking of fathers, of course, "responsibility" is a polite word for child support. I pointed out that this man has been supporting his children for 14 years by playing an active, positive role in their lives. This is far beyond anything that the mother could have reasonably expected, and we can all see how grateful she is.
5) If you want to put it simply in monetary terms, I have no doubt that Zoernig has spent plenty of money on the kids over the past 14 years. For one, they have spent much of their time with him, and he has had to provide a living place for them and cover expenses while they are with him. He has probably also bought them and provided them countless things over the years.
6) Given that Zoernig is not a high earner, even if this were a straight divorce case as opposed to a sperm donor case, there is still no reason why Zoernig should be paying Mintz money. I do believe that there are cases where child support is appropriate. For example, if one parent has been the primary caregiver during a marriage and upon divorce earns significantly less than the other parent, I believe that there should be child support. I do not see any indication of this in this case.
7) If there is anybody in this case who should be obligated for child support it is Mintz's former lesbian partner Deborah Mrantz. It is Mrantz who agreed to have the child with Mintz and the two of them agreed to raise their child. Deborah Mrantz is apparently no longer in the picture, and nobody involved in the show seem to know what had happened to her. Perhaps she left after their breakup and abandoned her child. Perhaps she was driven out of the child's life by Mintz, as is common in lesbian breakups. [To learn more about this issue, see my co-authored column Lesbian Child Custody Battles and Heterosexual Divorce (World Net Daily, 8/5/08)].
8) I'm not surprised that the New Mexico court ruled as they did. Courts will almost always rule that fathers have to pay child support because it is "in the best interest of the child."
9) What's ironic here is that Mintz, by acting as she did, probably cost the children money in the long run. Research shows that when fathers' custody rights are respected, they are quite generous with their children as they enter their college years. In my column New Study Punctures Myth of Uncaring Divorced Dad (Newsday, 6/23/03), I discussed a study which showed that, adjusting for all other factors, fathers actually provide more financial support for their children's college educations than mothers. Zoernig probably would have supplied a substantial amount of money over the kids' teen and college years and into their adult would. Now that Mintz has poisoned the well, I wonder if this will still be true.
10) Mintz was invited to come on the show by the Fox producers. She refused. That's a shame -- I would've enjoyed debating her. Apparently she didn't think she would enjoy debating me.
To watch the video of the show, click here or see below.
Also on the show were Chicago family law attorney Enrico Mirabelli, who made some good points about the need to respect contracts, as well as two women who sided with the mother, Melissa B. Brisman, Esq. and child advocate Trenny Stovall.
"));
19 queries. 0.604 seconds.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Theory: the lesbian that left took her money with her, and the lesbian left behind is looking for someone to fill the cash gap. Like any other civil suit, you go after the people with money.
Just remember guys, no government gives a crap about you until it's time to click Withdraw.
Yet another reason to never donate sperm.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
"Yet another reason to never donate sperm."
truer words were never spoken. a man has to be an idiot to donate sperm this world.
i would rather donate my left nut to the squirrels winter collection basket.
this guy then helps as a male role model? and he is married with his own family? on second thought, he deserves all they toss at him. no law against being stoopit i suppose.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
I was amused that the ladies seemed to think contracts should just be set aside. It seems my grocery list and a court recorded contract have about the same value in this country... well my grocery list is actually useful.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
glenn, we get that show ... has the tape aired yet?
August 11th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
"Every father has to pay child support!" Wow she said it all. Well Mike made a good point too. "Friends don't let friends be sperm donors." In any situation do not donate your sperm for any reason. Just say no!
August 11th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
i can't get the video to work
August 11th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
@Georgia Girl, push the 'play' button, it's youtube. Not complicated.
"Friends don't let friends be sperm donors." So true!
August 11th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Glenn - Great job!
August 12th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Dad of 4 "Just say no!"lol
This is your bank account $$$$$$$
This is your bank account on child support $0
Do you think the guys would have had some thing to say if they could have finished a sentence!!!!!!
August 12th, 2008 at 12:36 am
He does deserve what is coming to him. I guess being the kind caring guy he is - why should he have a problem now? He should have thought about this before fathering a child - whether with contract or without contract - what was he thinking?
First donate sperm, then donate cash. The very fact that the guy is fighting this is an indication of his dishonest generosity. Its likely that he wanted to be dad all along. But the extension of this law should be to all sperm donors.
His sperm, his choice, his pay.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Good job Glenn.
I have two meek observations to make
1)The bald lady was full of sh**
2) This reminds me of when I used to work for the federal government - the more responsibility you take on or the more work you do, the more they take advantage of you (by giving you even more extra work). That is, in a nutshell, what has happened to this man.
Now I know better than to donate sperm. Good luck lesbian couples, you better hope your potential donor doesn't know about this case.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:38 am
at the bare minimum he committed a crime against the child. Bringing the child to life with a guaranteed half-assed father. "Male role model"? What sort of BS is that? If you want to be a role model, start by not devaluing the necessity of a father to a child.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:48 am
They had a contract bottom line end of story!!!
Is he going to appeal ?
August 12th, 2008 at 2:02 am
You know Georgia Girl, if you would pay my airfare, I could help you learn how to click your mouse buttons.
Just on your computer.
Nothing more.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:13 am
From a Woman's View of this case:
1. Where is the docuemtation to verify this agreement? Where is the signed contract? Show me the paper. When does being a role model include every other weekend during the school year and half the summer? That sounds like a visitation schedule with Daddy to me.
2. Mrantz wasn't even around when Zoering and Mintz created baby #2.
3. Why would he agree to pay $250.00 in child support if he had no financial responsibility to these children? If you have a contract with someone that states no money will change hands, why would all of a sudden agree to give the other party money?How is it that when the support is $250 per month you understand it? So, according to you as long as the amount of support was $250 everything was fine and dandy. Well Sir, it would seem to me that if he wasn't responsible for child support then the amount wouldn't matter because he wouldn't be paying support. If you aren't financially responsible for a child then the support is $0.
4. These children call this man Daddy, he signed birthday cards to them from Daddy. If he acts like Daddy and calls himself Daddy then he is Daddy. When does a "role model" refer to himself as Daddy, when does a "role model" give birthday gifts and cards from Daddy?
5. This man is Daddy and the fact that he now has three additional children doesn't change the fact that he has two other children, regardless of the way they were concieved.
6. If this man was with the mother of these children and he wasn't making enough money to support them then what would he have to do? Go get another job. How does the location of these children change that? The cost of raising a child is not getting cheaper, it is getting more expensive.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:15 am
5) If you want to put it simply in monetary terms, I have no doubt that Zoernig has spent plenty of money on the kids over the past 14 years. For one, they have spent much of their time with him, and he has had to provide a living place for them and cover expenses while they are with him. He has probably also bought them and provided them countless things over the years.
GLEN THIS SOUNDS LIKE THE DEFINITION OF DADDY TO ME.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:26 am
Cost of two cartons of cigarettes per week = $42.80
Court ordered child support per week = $41.00 ($32.00 + $9.00 for $31,000 in arrears)
Dead Beat Dad spends more on cigarettes per week than he pays in support per week.
PRICELESS
August 12th, 2008 at 2:42 am
Norman says "2) This reminds me of when I used to work for the federal government - the more responsibility you take on or the more work you do, the more they take advantage of you (by giving you even more extra work). That is, in a nutshell, what has happened to this man."
Much of government essentially operates on the principle of reverse Darwinism. That is, the weakest and most inefficient prosper and are rewarded, while the most efficient and effective are culled.
Most people who run government departments know there is limited incentive to achieve better outcomes or greater efficiency, because if there are problems you can usually demand more resources to fix them. Whereas if you achieve greater efficiencies and savings, you may simply have your budget cut.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:04 am
It's a funny argument to say that because he took a more active role in the child's life, then he violated the original contract by acting like a real father.
So does that mean that any other man who helps in raising fatherless children should then be up for child support as well?
When I was a teenager my brother and I used to spend a lot of time with our uncle. He stayed over when my mother had other things to do, and we would go fishing and stuff like that. So maybe he should have been hit for child support, given that he was adopting a role closer to a father? Hell, he's pretty old now, late 70s. But he might still have a few quid that can be squeezed out of him!
August 12th, 2008 at 5:35 am
So does this mean that a man that never has anything to do with a child is excused from paying child support? The women's argument would suggest that. The fact that he "acted as a dad" instead of a "role model" seems to be the idea of these women. I wonder if the sperm donor had nothing to do with the lesbian mother and the child, if she would have still gone after child support? You bet your ass she would have.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:42 am
Nick S,
You are absolutly right about the argument being "funny". It is absolutely ridiculous actually.
The deal was that he would act as a positive male role model to help ensure that the children in question grew up well balanced, but that he would have no decision making rights with respect o the children because he was not a legal parent.
You can bet that had he decided to but his head in and tell the mother how she should raise these children she would have been quick to remind him that he is just a role model... not their parent.
Yet when it comes time to cash in suddenly he's not just a positive male influence in their life, he's a full fledged parent with all the financial obligations that go along with it.
He shouldn't kick himself too much though... my guess is that even if he didn't spend a day with these children he would have still been sought out for child support and he would have still been found to be financially obligated to these children regardless of whatever contract was in place.
The moment he agreed to donate sperm was the moment he left his fate in the hands of the woman he donated it too... her verbal and written assurance that she just wanted a baby and that she would take care of it if he was nice enough to help her means nothing.
Ironically, this same philosophy doesn't seem to apply to men as didn't some woman sue a guy for breaking off an engagement recently?
August 12th, 2008 at 7:32 am
jason.............you make a great point. "The moment he agreed to donate sperm was the moment he left his fate in the hands of the woman" .
actually, the moment any man leaves his fate to a women for any reason is the exact time in his life that he has lost his freedom of choice...............forever.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Jason,
Actually, this creates all sorts of precedents for other situations. For example, if a woman is condescending towards me is she not agreeing to take on the role of a Mom? So I should be able to sue for child support, right?
My, what a tangled web we weave!
August 12th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Precisely Jason. That's the "womans' prerogative" you will often hear of. Meanwhile the one way flow of resources, including the value of ones labour, continues.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:21 am
The matriarchy now uses children as the yolk that fuels her "support". This will prove to be an act of barbarism, for until the matriarchy finds some balance, men will just refuse to get married and have children.
I speak with alot of white middle class Americans that feel, having children is only for the poor and un-educated.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Great job Glenn!!!
But I have a couple of questions. What happened to the other female partner's obligation to support $$?. Did she get let off the hook? And why couldn't they have made the playing field a little more fair? Poor Glenn was out numbered up there. And the Bald lady really pissed me off because it seemed to me she put him on the defensive and Glenn couldn't get out what he wanted to say in a calm manner. If the sperm donator didn't have any contact with the child I believe the contract was good, but as soon as he had regular contact as a male role model that's where he screwed up. But it just shows you where contracts stand in this day in age.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Fact is you shouldn't donate sperm unless it's via a clinic .
August 12th, 2008 at 8:51 am
This is an interesting precedent.
It looks like that court has wiped Open Adoption out of existence.
Though it's a safe bet that judge will never apply this ruling to a birth mother who maintains a relationship with their child after adoption. This is going to be one of those blatant gender-specific rulings.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:54 am
sorry but I have no sympathy for this guy. Bottom line is he should have done the research BEFORE he agreed to donate his sperm. That research would show that once the sperm leaves his body it's no longer his - a woman can basically do any damn thing she wants with it and hook him for support. Case after case supports this.
Use a condom? make damn sure you dispose of it because it's perfectly legal for her to take it out of the trash and inseminate herself and then collect the money.
In the end all of us males need to either get a vasectomy or give up on sex. Sorry ladies you can tell me all you want that I sound like a woman hater BUT the fact is men have NO rights whatsoever in the current system therefore our ONLY choice is to either not have sex or ensure we are sterile - isn't equality a wonderful thing......
August 12th, 2008 at 8:55 am
hhhmmm, what if the contract included an agreement that he would remain anonymous? Suppose he then gets bitten by the "daddy bug" and wants to be in the children's lives against the mothers wishes. Should the contract matter in that case?
There are "risks" when men and women go the "known donor" route. The donor may become attached to his offspring and want a traditional father role. On the other hand, the mom realizes that she needs financial help even though she didn't think she would before getting pregnant. If a woman must allow the father to be in his children's lives, it is only fair that he pay child support. This man appears to have been much more than a role model. He really should financially support the children.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:12 am
You know I think that most men would want to support their children and pay child support but there is just one problem, we have no say so in how much, we are forced to pay too much, so much we can't support ourselves, then on top of that in many cases we are not allowed to see our children. I don't know about all men, but I know in my case it makes life a little unbareable to exist without them. I need them in my life I love them and I cannot even see them!! They were part of my driving force to excel in life and move forward, it gave me something to work for.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:13 am
If a woman must allow the father to be in his children's lives, it is only fair that he pay child support.
So where's the lesbian "co-mother" in this picture? If this guy is still to count as the father, does the child then have three parents? How come she isn't billed for child support?
Talk about all rights and no obligations.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:28 am
lor marrie says
"Suppose he then gets bitten by the "daddy bug" "
MCA say's, wow thats a not so subtle hint of the position you feel fathers should hold in a familly. In an extreme matriatrchy, fatherhood is to be viewed as a bug.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:29 am
[...] Read more at glennsacks.com. [...]
August 12th, 2008 at 9:37 am
# Norseman Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 9:13 am
If a woman must allow the father to be in his children's lives, it is only fair that he pay child support.
So where's the lesbian "co-mother" in this picture? If this guy is still to count as the father, does the child then have three parents? How come she isn't billed for child support?
Talk about all rights and no obligations.
Exactly... This is what I like you have this lesbian couple playing house and marriage then when they split the other co-mother isn't held to pay child support and the go after the biological sperm donor. If it was a marriage between to females then the child support should be between the two females because I doubt the sperm donor had a voice or say in the custody dispute.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:41 am
How come she isn't billed for child support?--Norseman
She should not have to be billed because she's not their mother nor father.
MCA say's, wow thats a not so subtle hint of the position you feel fathers should hold in a familly. In an extreme matriatrchy, fatherhood is to be viewed as a bug.--MCA
I'm quite sure you understood exactly what my point was.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:43 am
I agree w/ Pankaj. It was his narcissism that got him into this situation to begin with.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:51 am
What I was trying to say was in the same situation a man would be the one paying support. Yet, in this situation yet again a "man" is paying support. Not fair.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:52 am
I thought they were married?
August 12th, 2008 at 10:11 am
The court said he "enjoys the rights of parenthood,"
Living with the children every other weekend is not enjoying the rights of parenthood, and even these "rights" are subject to interference by the parent with power and control over the children.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:27 am
I wouldn't donate sperm even if it was through a clinic. Let the same sex couples immaculately conceive their children, then it will be them (females) not us (males) fighting to make these laws more fair.
I don't blame this guy because I didn't know how biased the laws were until I saw my own child taken away from me. Knowing what I know now, I would never have a child again. This backlash is already happening with the decline of marriage in the USA. Children that grew up from broken homes and saw their fathers get screwed are determined never to let it happen to them; and all you hear from the women is how it's so hard to find a man that will commit. We'll I don't think it will be long before the sensible women (that want to marry and raise a family) start a backlash of their own. Now, hopefully with no sperm doners, we'll get the Lesbian couples to join us on that front also, and maybe finally something will be done so the laws respect fathers as true parents again.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Sad Dad,
I feel for you and agree to everything you said. If nothing else you're among good company.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:34 am
DCR,
You're absolutely right. Funny, your post reminds me of someone that used to be on the radio ten years or so ago. He would advise men to keep hot sauce in their bathroom cabinet and after sex put the hot sauce in the used condom before throwing it in the trash.
I don't necessarily condone this, but do think it's funny.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:37 am
So the guy was punished for going above what he needed to do?
You would think women who are screaming for "equality" all the time would want their contracts to be binding just as it is for men. Ha!
I know women want equality when it benefits them, and want special privileges when it benefits them.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:43 am
David M. Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 10:37 am
So the guy was punished for going above what he needed to do?
You would think women who are screaming for "equality" all the time would want their contracts to be binding just as it is for men. Ha!
I know women want equality when it benefits them, and want special privileges when it benefits them.
Well said!
August 12th, 2008 at 10:46 am
The legal system is designed to further female reproductive prerogatives, before, during and after conception. More reasons why I avoided having children (and marriage). It's like purchasing a put option: limited upside, and potentially unlimited downside. To pursue the analogy, the put option is a bet that the current cost of raising children will decrease over time. Not very likely! Males that have the energy, interest and the good luck for their put option to stay "in the money" can raise children, but once their position collapses, the downside is potentially infinite. The family courts have seen to it that child support is structured as a fine payable to the court, with interest. This case involving a sperm doner to a lesbian couple is one among countless others.
Risk managers will do whatever they can to avoid the exposure of the put option. Is it any wonder that increasing numbers of men want to avoid financial ruin at the hands of the famly court? The advice to keep it in your pants is the only option in the current legal climate.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:14 am
The cosy way in which the two ladies dismissed the contract shows the very real dictatorial power of the Family Courts in this country. Contracts, law, order, justice all be damned. What they say goes. Reminds one of Emperor Caligula and beginning of the end for the Roman Empire.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:19 am
"It is Mrantz who agreed to have the child with Mintz and the two of them agreed to raise their child. Deborah Mrantz is apparently no longer in the picture, and nobody involved in the show seem to know what had happened to her."
Written agreements should have legal force. The biological relationship should not overrule the written agreements.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:24 am
roy Aug 12th at 2:02am
That was just creepy. If we want more women to listen, and participate in the discussion, posts like that do not help. Please knock it off.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:45 am
LorMarie says: "She should not have to be billed because she's not their mother nor father."
Factory highlights the hyupocrisy: Does this mean you disagree with the idea of "social father", where a man who has taken on a "parental role" can be made to pay support?
Specifically, do you think there is ever a situation where it's OK to make a man who is not the biological father of a child pay support for that child?
And I do mean ANY situation.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:54 am
The legal system in this country needs to be completely revamped because nothing mans anything anymore!
My parents died about 18 years ago now and they had a will that was not worth the paper it was written on.
Basically everything was let to me. I have an older sister [now estranged because of this whole problem].
Some may say what my parents did was wrong but it was not. My parents were old world, which meant everything was left to the oldest born male, and he was to do the right thing and distribute the wealth from there. My parents did not have much to leave but boy can that little amount bring out the worst in people. I told my sister that when I get the money I would make payment until 1/2 of the estate was hers. There was a nominal bank account, a slightly less nominal portfolio of stocks and the house and the very old and inexpensive things in it. The total assets totaling about $100,000. I got the house [since she had one] valued at about $52,000, and some old furnishings not worth much, she got a full length mink coat, a full carrot diamond ring, two vehicles a caprice classic and a full size pickup truck, and stocks worth about $20,000. The bottom line is that there was about a $20,000 difference in my favor. She wanted to buy house 3 stories [unknown to me] with 2 streams, 5+ acres. My payments would not secure their house so she sued me for the $20,000. She had me removed as executor of the will and the idiot judge found in her favor. I had to get a loan for the amount and pay her immediately [court order]. This left me, my wife and kids in a bad way. I also brought up to the judge that now I would have to pay interest on this money so in my eyes it was no longer equal because I would pay way more than $20,000 over the 10-20 years that at that time I could afford to pay it off, He did not care.
There were many more cynical things that my sister did to make this happen.
She helped clean out the house and found the will and threw it in the garbage. My dog that NEVER dug in the garbage did and oddly enough dug out the will and was playing with it [truth is stranger than fiction I could not make this up] after my sister left for the day. Had he not done that 1/3 of the estate would have gone to the state because there was no will. So she was willing to accept less that I promised her just because of her paranoia. Further more it took about 4 month after my father died for my mother to die. I had no money and on the if come that mom was going to live I used her checking account to pay her utilities and taxes. Being young I knew that I was not doing anything morally or ethically wrong but did not know legally. Well my brother-in-law threatened to throw me in jail for forgery unless I went to court and agreed with the judge’s verdict uncontested. In my state this is not the case what I did as long as I was not profiting and putting money directly into my pocket and I was just taking car of my mothers business with her money there was nothing wrong legally.
Well I did not know this and she and he got their way. Bottom line is I would like to go back to the lawyer that drew up the will and ask for the $100 back since it was not worth the paper it was printed on.
OUR LEGAL SYSTEM IS A FARCE! No agreement or contract means anything any more. My family is still fighting to get out of debt form the legal fees and loans I had to take for this whole fiasco. [This whole thing took place some time after my mother’s death in the meantime my family was in an apartment and because of distance of where my sister lived I had to go take care of the maintenance and yard work on the house. There are many more details of this corrupt event but this is enough to show how these things can and will happen including in this donor case.
b
August 12th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
@LorMarie She should not have to be billed because she's not their mother nor father.
Really didn't she ACT as a parent ?
So based on your "logic" every phone book dad out there should be immediately released from their CS obligations cause THEY ARE NOT THE BIOLOGICAL parent - you know the ones I mean the ones women pick out of the phone book so the DA can "send notices " too and when they don't show up hook them for 21 years of support OR all those fathers who have verified DNA tests showing they aren;'t the father yet are still expected to pay.
Can I quote you as saying they should not have to pay support because "they are not the mother or father"
August 12th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Cases like this make women look bad and greedy. And I do feel sorry for the guy—he is being made to pay simply because he loves his kids. If he gave sperm and left he’d be off the hook. What kind of message does it send when you punish a guy like this? How could anyone say he deserved it because he was narcissistic? He helped out a friend. If I gave someone a present, how could they then bill me an additional amount every month for it? That’s not fair. He didn’t get her pregnant and then callously want to walk away; she wanted a baby. And there was a contract!!??? This is ridiculous. He should keep pursuing it legally.
I can’t see the video at work so I’m just going on what Glenn wrote.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Jeana,
I am glad he is on the hook. He deserves what he is getting. Guys like him have degraded male reproductive capability for years. Finally they are being held accountable for such attacks on masculinity.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Jeana - Under our current family law system, No Good Deed Goes Unpunished.
This is the very same logic used in: "you supported your wife for many years, now that she is leaving you and leaving the marriage, you will need to support her forever more (although she owes you nothing in return)".
August 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Pankaj,
Men like him should be protected. He doesn't deserve it. He was helping a couple have a baby. Which I think is their right to want. But they had the obligation of caring for that baby. His obligation ended.
Lots of people depend on sperm donors and egg donors. Cases like this are maddening.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
David,
This has nothing to do with alimony. And even alimony shouldn’t go on for more than a few years in most cases.
I think the courts need to understand that “what’s best for the children” doesn’t involve making their father angry and causing a rift because it could easily harm his relationship with them. How about getting her partner to pay child support? Does she have a second job? If they were on the verge of being homeless or there was an illness she couldn’t afford or something like that, it would be different. Even then I don’t think he’d really be obligated, but I bet he would have not problem coming to their rescue.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
I hope cases like this totally demolish the artificial insemination industry. I hope men worldwide stop donating sperm altogether. I hope women finally "get it" someday.
I'm not holding my breath.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Jeana, care to chime in on LorMarie's little faux pas?
August 12th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
"Lots of people depend on sperm donors and egg donors. Cases like this are maddening."
Yes and that should bother me how? Lots of people depend on womb and ovaries too.
Heck he put a child in a position as to not have a dad. Basically - he said it loud and clear - FATHERS are OPTIONAL. He has my sympathy? No way in hell. Let him rot.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Glenn,
It's a bit rich to dismiss the money as insignificant when it's only xxx. The fact is that if you don't have it, $100 is a lot of money. As the inflation wave approaches, I'm sure that we will soon see a wave of inflation-based CS adjustments, and the "anyway, it's not a lot" argument will be used more and more to avoid the principle of the argument and just cut to the prize. I don't know the fellow's income, but I'm sure that putting the money under his discretion the money would be well used, while giving it to a person who feels no shame about heading back to court for a raise will squander it.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I hope this does not demolish the artificial insemination industry. Factory, I think you only want sperm donation to cease because you don't want women to have babies without men. Not because you care about the poor saps who are taken advantage of.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
How come his obligation ended? He created a baby - did he not? He consented to making a live human being!
Why should he get a break that other fathers don't. If he gets the "men's choice" of not being a liable dad through a legal contract, then so should every other man. Sorry you cannot pick and choose, laws have to apply to everyone.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Factory, I hope the artificial insemination industry florishes on the backs of idiots and father-hating males. Let them pay for their own deeds.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Pankaj,
If you are talking about LorMarie’s belief that he should pay, I do disagree with her this time. The kids aren’t in dire need of anything, and if they were, I bet the guy would provide. In this case I can’t see how he could be obligated to pay anything.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Pankaj,
He had a contract, did he not? Even if it was verbal. No. When a pregnancy results accidentally, then I think both the female and male need to deal with it. If the female wants to have a baby and gets pregnant on purpose, even if the guy agrees, then I really don’t think the guy should have to pay. I don’t see any hypocrisy.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
"LorMarie Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 9:41 am
How come she isn't billed for child support?--Norseman
She should not have to be billed because she's not their mother nor father. "
But, according to the NM court, I am assuming she "enjoyed the rights of parenthood", too. If this is grounds for the sperm donor to pay CS, shouldn't it be sufficient grounds for the same-sex partner as well? After all, one of the children actually lived with her full-time (as opposed to "part-time" for the bio father). OH, I forgot... we have different legal standards for women and men...
August 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Actually Jeana, what LorMarie said was...
"She [the departing lesbian] should not have to be billed because she's not their mother nor father. "
This means that even though she was married to the mother, and held a parental role, that woman should not be made to pay because...once again...
"She should not have to be billed because she's not their mother nor father. "
Just to make sure there is absolutely no ambiguity, this argument basically states that since the departing lesbian is not biologically related to the child, she should be free to leave.
What I am directly asking you is if you agree with the statement..
"She should not have to be billed because she's not their mother nor father. "
????
August 12th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Factory,
But I think she was the mother as well. If I adopted, the child I adopted would not be biologically related to me, but STILL MINE. She decided to have a baby with her partner. Even though the law doesn't allow gay people to get married in most places, they still were a family. She was the other mother.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
The opinion of the New Mexico Court of Appeals can be found here.
Some relevant excerpts. The most important excerpt is in the last paragraph quoted below.
I have added some emphasis on points that I thought particularly important. I also use ellipses (...) to show opinion text that I deleted for brevity.
I hope this helps inform the decision underway.
==========
"In this case, we must decide whether a known sperm donor is responsible for child support when there was an agreement, prior to conception, that he would not be financially obligated. We conclude that while such an agreement may be valid in some instances, where the biological father goes beyond merely donating sperm and assumes a parental role, as in this case, he is liable for child support."
...
"Without the assistance of a licensed physician, Mother then used a syringe-like implement to impregnate herself with Father’s donated sperm."
...
"Both parties acted in accordance with the agreement following the births of both children.... However, in 2000, Mother filed a paternity action, seeking child support for both children. Ultimately, the parties entered into a stipulated order that ... required Father to pay $250 per month in child support, plus $50 per month toward arrears. Father is current on all payments."
"Under the UPA [Uniform Parentage Act] the 'parent and child relationship' is defined as 'the legal relationship existing between a child and his natural . . . parents incident to which the law confers or imposes rights, privileges, duties and obligations.' "
"Father argues that because the children were conceived through artificial insemination, Section 40-11-6 of the UPA, entitled 'Artificial insemination,' governs. This section states:
Any donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in
artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor’s wife may be
treated as if he were the natural father of the child thereby conceived if
he so consents in writing signed by him and the woman...§ 40-11-6(B)
"While this section provides guidance as to parental responsibility of sperm donors in some instances, it does not apply in this case. The plain language of the statute requires the semen be provided to a licensed physician. In this case, the sperm was not provided to a licensed physician, but rather, Mother inseminated herself. As a result, the artificial insemination section of the UPA is not applicable to our facts."
"Elsewhere, the UPA provides that a man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if,
'while the child is under the age of majority, he openly holds out the child
as his natural child and has established a personal, financial or custodial
relationship with the child; or...' § 40-11-5(A)(4)
"Here, Father holds himself out to be the children’s father and has established a relationship with them. Father has enjoyed regular visitation with each child since birth. In fact, shortly after Mother filed the initial request for support, Father asserted his visitation rights by filing a motion alleging that Mother 'has interfered with [his] relationship to children by imposing arbitrary conditions on visitation.' Further, in the stipulated order entered into in 2001, Father acknowledged that he is the natural father of children. Finally, Father is registered as both children’s father with the vital statistics bureau. Therefore, we hold that Father is the natural father of both children and is subject to all responsibilities therein, including the obligation to pay child support."
August 12th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
nh-dad Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
"LorMarie Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 9:41 am
How come she isn't billed for child support?--Norseman
She should not have to be billed because she's not their mother nor father. "
But, according to the NM court, I am assuming she "enjoyed the rights of parenthood", too. If this is grounds for the sperm donor to pay CS, shouldn't it be sufficient grounds for the same-sex partner as well? After all, one of the children actually lived with her full-time (as opposed to "part-time" for the bio father). OH, I forgot... we have different legal standards for women and men...
=======
nh,
Well stated!
b
August 12th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
jeana,
Answer directly yes or know should he have to pay CS.
b
August 12th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
oops my bad yes or no
b
August 12th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Bernie,
Didn't I say in each of my posts "no"? No no no.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
" She should not have to be billed because she's not their mother nor father. "
> But, according to the NM court, I am assuming [the co-mother] "enjoyed the rights of parenthood", too.
Good point, and courts use this very same argument is often used to get non-bio dads, even duped dads to "pay up". But not non-bio moms, for some strange reason...
I didn't read the whole decision but notice the past tense in the statement: "He _enjoyed_ the rights of parenthood" - and how this is used to justify a future obligation, regardless of whether or not bio-mom allows him to continue to "enjoy" any rights with his child.
In fact, as many of us know, the judge has now given an incentive to bio-mom to curtail this man's contact time even further, since that will have the effect of increasing the formula-calculated support.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
In addition to a "marriage strike", a sperm donation strike seems like a good idea, until there is proper legislation to protect donors. (Infertile mixed couples and gay couples should unite on this issue).
It will also send the cost of donated sperm through the roof - and you thought that gasoline was expensive!
August 12th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
jeana,
I am sorry typo, should she have to pay?
b
August 12th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Bernie,
Do you mean pay him? No. But both women should get no payments from the guy. I do think that the other female partner (now absent) should pay if she did want the kids also. If the woman with custody doesn't want the other female partner involved and the other female partner doesn't want to be involved, then that's up to them.
I see that the courts think that because he acted like a father he should have to pay child support. But I think him acting like a father should be looked at as a bonus for the kids. Not as a financial obligation for the kids' mother.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Here's more from the opinion of the New Jersey Court of Appeals.
This time, I have used bold face to emphasize particularly important facts or conclusions.
As before, I use ellipses (...) in place of text that has been deleted for brevity.
=================
"It is well established that child support orders may be modified.... However, in order to modify such an order, a substantial change in circumstances must be shown.... 'The burden of proof is on the moving party to satisfy the court that the circumstances have so changed as to justify the modification.' "
"Our review of the record indicates that a substantial change in circumstances was not established prior to modification of support. Although Mother argues that her financial circumstances have changed because she is no longer receiving distributions from her family business, no evidence was presented establishing such a change. Further, Mother failed to prove that any such change occurred since entry of the original order."
...
"... the earliest information available is her 2001 income tax statement. This statement indicates that her income the year she entered into the agreement is approximately the same as her current annual income. In addition, undisputed evidence was presented at the hearing indicating that prior to entry of the stipulated order in 2001, Mother was aware that the family business would not be buying back stock. Despite this knowledge, Mother entered into the agreement. Therefore, Mother failed to establish that a change in circumstances 'occurred since the prior adjudication where child support was originally awarded.' "
...
"Still, in determining whether to modify a support order, 'the controlling influence should be the welfare and best interests of the child[ren].' Fox v. Doak, 78 N.M. 743, 744, 438 P.2d 153, 154 (1968). However, Mother failed to present evidence demonstrating how the children’s existing welfare was affected by the alleged change in circumstances. In fact, the record shows that the children are well provided for, and the stipulated order states that 'the children have trusts set up for their financial needs.' Evidence at the modification hearing shows that these trusts are still in place, Mother uses the funds in the trusts for the children’s care, and each trust has a substantial balance."
"Finally, '[a] duty to support subsequent children . . . may be a defense to a child
support increase for the children of the parties.' § 40-4-11.1(C)(2)(e). Since the
original order, Father has married and fathered three additional children."
...
"In light of Mother’s failure to provide evidence of a substantial and material change in circumstances occurring after entry of the stipulated order, or evidence of how the children have been affected, coupled with consideration of Father’s duty to support his subsequent three children, we find that the district court abused its discretion in modifying the stipulated order. "
"We hold that while Father is liable for child support, Mother failed to establish a substantial change in circumstances, and therefore the district court abused its discretion in modifying the stipulated order. We reverse and remand for rehearing consistent with the foregoing."
August 12th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Oops, the bold face didn't work. Oh well, I'm sure you all can find the important bits by yourselves.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
"sperm is now the signature on a financial contract"
August 12th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I agree with several writers here about the role of sperm banks in this culture.
A man who donates his precious body fluids to the science for artificial insemination to fulfill some desire for a want- to- be- mother really diminishes the worth and value of all men. A simple stud bull, who, it appears from this story, still has the ring through his nose and is still being led by it.
To the men who belong to MENSA groups or other self-styled men of intelligence and social standing: are you of such great intelligence that you can not understand this? Not only will possibly your values, such as being an artificial insemination donor, be genetically passed onto God knows how many people, but you can be easily replaced. And if you can be easily replaced so can all of the men who write their comments here. Thanks, pal.
Should there be a moratorium on reproductive technologies and especially more so for anonymous sperm donaters? I can not say for sure but since that Genie is already out of the bottle the least we can do as a society is to inform the bulls of the impending consequences. If they refuse to listen then let the floodgates of law suits for child support payments be their reward while the rest of society has to cope with more fatherlessness because of their actions.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Reviewing the court's opinion, the applicable law, and the facts of this case, it is my view (caveat: IANAL) that this opinion was the right one.
The court is not saying "be a sperm donor, be on the hook for child support". Nor is the court making any blanket statement about the enforceability of no-child-support agreements made prior to conception -- quite the opposite, the court explicity agreed that in certain cirumstances such agreements are enforceable..
In short, the court is saying that the facts in this case plainly show that:
1. The sperm donor in this case clearly had an established parental (father) relationship with the children, and in fact he had even petitioned for visitation. Under New Mexico law, he is considered the father of these children, and that he is therefore liable for child support -- which even he agreed to (stipulated) in 2001.
2. The mother's request for an increase in child support payments from $250 to $674 per month was rejected by the Court of Appeals, because there was no documentation in the record to show any material change in circumstances, nor did the current circumstances of the children warrant any increase.
3. The net result of the Court of Appeals decision is to preserve the status quo: The mother retains custody of the children, and father maintains his existing visitation and child support obligations, and the amount of the child support remains at $250 per month.
4. No judgement is made in the court's opinion about the parental status of the lesbian partner of the mother. This is because the lesbian partner is not a party to this hearing.having reviewed the actual opinion and the facts of this case, it is my view that this outcome was correctly decided.
Caveat repeated: IANAL
August 12th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
(sigh).
Jeana, I put the question to you no less than three times (3), and yet you still managed to not answer by misinterpreting the question. Excellent work!
I'll repost and try to highlight the right words...
--------------------------------------
"She [the departing lesbian] should not have to be billed because she's not their mother nor father. "
This means that even though she was married to the mother, and held a parental role, that woman should not be made to pay because...once again...
"She should not have to be billed because she's not their mother nor father. "
Just to make sure there is absolutely no ambiguity, this argument basically states that since the departing lesbian is not biologically related to the child, she should be free to leave.
What I am directly asking you is if you agree with the statement..
"She should not have to be billed because she's not their mother nor father. "
????
-------------------------------------
Care to try again?
August 12th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Knock Knock,
Lesbian and gay partners are usually not considered relevant because of discriminatory attitudes. But they really do matter. They should have the same rights and responsibilities as non-gay couples. I understand why the court decided it that way. I just think it isn't fair to the guy simply because it was a favor to a friend with no obligation on his part, which was understood. If he wanted to be part of the kids' lives and she didn't mind, then who cares? Why does that mean he should pay? It's because they are biologically his. If he helped secure (and even pay for) an adoption for her with another non-biologically related child and then stayed involved in the child's life, I doubt they'd make him pay.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Factory,
I know you’re trying to get me somehow. Which is ok. But I think I’ve answered you.
I think she WAS another mother and so she should have to pay. She adopted (or not, since gays/lesbians aren’t always allowed to adopt) the kids. Or would if she could. So it’s like an adoption where you’re not biologically related. The guy was the sperm donor.
Right?
August 12th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Too many to respond to so I'll sum it up:
If a man is not married to a woman with children, I don't see him as a social father. Therefore, he should not, in my opinion, pay child support. If they are married and used sperm donation, that's a different story. He is in that case a social father.
Whether we like it or not, lesbian and gay relationships are not given the same "legal status" as hetero relationships. Therefore, I believe that lesbians who are not biologically related to the children of their partners should not be held responsible for support.
Again, women who do not want their donors to claim their offspring or men who do not want to be responsible financially should avoid going the "known donor" route but stick to sperm banks where all parties will be protected. Otherwise, don't complain when it all hits the fan.
And I say that with the utmost humbleness...(rme).
August 12th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Jeana, I was making no comment about what the lesbian partner role, rights, and obligations should, or should not be.
I was merely explaining why this opinion by the New Mexico Court of Appeals makes only a passing reference to her: She is not a party to this case.
"the guy simply because it was a favor to a friend with no obligation on his part, which was understood. If he wanted to be part of the kids' lives and she didn't mind, then who cares? Why does that mean he should pay? It's because they are biologically his."
No, this is factually incorrect. The court did NOT base its decision on "because they are biologically his."
Rather, the court based its decision on New Mexico law, which says that a man is a child's father if he "openly holds out the child as his natural child and has established a personal, financial or custodial relationship with the child".
This man did all of these things, specifically:
1. "Father holds himself out to be the children’s father and has established a relationship with them."
2. "Father has enjoyed regular visitation with each child since birth. In fact, shortly after Mother filed the initial request for support, Father asserted his visitation rights by filing a motion alleging that Mother 'has interfered with [his] relationship to children by imposing arbitrary conditions on visitation.'"
3. "Further, in the stipulated order entered into in 2001, Father acknowledged that he is the natural father of children."
4. "Finally, Father is registered as both children’s father with the vital statistics bureau."
The court concluded these four facts established him as father of these children, under New Mexico law.
It is very difficult for this man to argue that he is not these children's father when he (a) petitioned for visitation as a father, (b) agreed in a legal contract that he was in fact their father, and (c) has acted as if he were the father for all these years.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
So LorMarie, to get this "straight"...In loco parentis only applies if you're a straight male? One set of laws for gay (women), one for everyone else....because of "historic and ongoing bias"?
Yup, you're a feminist alright.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
In response to Knock Knock and The New Mexico Court. It is not
Womans case: There is no entity a woman can work for then quit or get fired from and even though she works for another entity now; everytime that old entity posts more profit she increases from it. Except: in the case of Child Support
Mans Case: There is no entity a man can work for then quit or get fired from and even though he doesnt work there anymore, the old entity gets his profits when he posts more. Except: in the case of Child Support
There is no other entity in thw world that doesnt hold the reciepent accountable for how they spend their funds. Except: In the case of Child Support
Welfare recipients are now more accountable for how they recieve and spend their funds than Child Support recipients. What does that say for the system?
In fact the Child Support system never takes into account the new spouses income. I know of three women who have new spouses and put the Child Support straight into a retirement fund.
What it really comes down to is that the spirit of Child Support debate is the spirit of injustice that comes with it. The injustice is just too much. As human beings we get seriously upset when there is injustice and we have a right to voice our opinions/facts about it. What we have failed to do though is make any headway to turn it around. Whether we men are not passionate enough, do not have the right contacts, have not leveraged the right power, or whatever, we still sit and wallow in the mire while the women have foud the right avenues to use.
We need to seriously analyze what weve been doing cause its not working.
Other facts:
.There is no accountability for how the Mother or Father spends support money. It may never reach the child. A parent can use support money to buy a car or whatever.
.Support acts as a penalization for not having time with your kids. In essence a parent pays not to see their kids
.Most states subsidize welfare through the Child Support System by using interest off the Child Support accounts.
.A woman's standard of living can increase by as much as 40% and a father’s can decrease as much as 60% after a divorce. Due largely in part that if a woman enters another relationship with a man she is under the new spouses financial umbrella, and men generally make more money than women; making her income increase
.The Child Support System does not factor in new spouses for child support recipients. Instead it may reach the recipients retirement fund etc.
.There is no mandate that keeps a parent from interfering with another parent’s visitation time.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Knock Knock,
I see what you’re saying. I see why the court decided as it did. And I can agree with how they decided based on those facts and the law. It’s just that I see him as initially doing a favor and then, as oftentimes happens, once the baby is there, he wanted more involvement. It reminds me of the surrogate mom who decided to take custody of triplets who weren’t biologically hers and then made the guy (who paid her and whose sperm was used) pay child support to her. It doesn’t make sense. If you want a baby, you need sperm. If you make a deal/contract/whatever saying that the kid is your responsibility, then that’s your responsibility.
The guy then wanting to be part of the kid’s life is a separate matter and shouldn’t have anything to do with child support. She could always have said “no, stay out of the kids’ lives”.
But I see your point about the court’s decision. Thank you for clarifying.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Jeana, as far as the courts are concerned, if you care about a woman's kids at all, and babysit them too often, you can be made to pay support (here in Canada, this can even happen if several other men are paying support for the same kid!).
Functionally, this means that single mothers are even more likely to remain so, since even dating long term exposes men to the risk. And what guy wants to support a woman who has already shown no compunction in fleecing her ex? Or has shown infidelity / fickleness?
Talk about your law of unintended consequences....
August 12th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
"The court is not saying "be a sperm donor, be on the hook for child support". Nor is the court making any blanket statement about the enforceability of no-child-support agreements made prior to conception -- quite the opposite, the court explicity agreed that in certain cirumstances such agreements are enforceable.."
So? They're not "saying" that - so what? The point is it establishes a precedent.
This is typical of the type of thinking of those in the legal profession. When they have to defend their system, they pretend that the system is totally "reactive"; and also, that each case is decided solely on it's individual merits with no repercussions.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
LorMarie,
You’re right about going the “unknown donor” route. Which is kind of sad because the kid could possibly have a good relationship with the egg or sperm donor who’s also a friend of their parent.
I also thought you had a good point when you said, “what if the contract included an agreement that he would remain anonymous? Suppose he then gets bitten by the "daddy bug" and wants to be in the children's lives against the mothers wishes. Should the contract matter in that case?”
It’s all so complicated.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Right....and women who go back on adoption agreements are rare as hen's teeth.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Factory Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
So LorMarie, to get this "straight"...In loco parentis only applies if you're a straight male? One set of laws for gay (women), one for everyone else....because of "historic and ongoing bias"?
Did I say it only applied to straight males? "Fathers" also include gay males. The same rules on fatherhood and child support should apply to them as well.
Yup, you're a feminist alright.--Factory
And you're a misogynist.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Factory,
"Jeana, as far as the courts are concerned, if you care about a woman's kids at all, and babysit them too often, you can be made to pay support (here in Canada, this can even happen if several other men are paying support for the same kid!). "
Are you sure? That sounds ridiculous. And HOW could more than one guy pay for the same kid legally? I'm sure it's been tried and even happens, but how could it possibly be legal (unless the men were Siamese Twins)?
August 12th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Oh no, not the "m" word! What will I do with my carefully crafted argument against applying laws unevenly based on arbitrary assignations of "special status". Sure, I call women on their crap. The really funny thing is, that tends to be what attracts them to me....so, women like misogynists???
I didn't fail to note that you avoided actually arguing your point that it SHOULD be ok for homosexual couples to avoid the family court system. Could it be because in such cases it's almost unavoidable that women will get shafted like men do?
Nah. Couldn't be.
Either you believe in "in place of parent" statutes, or you do not. This Animal Farm "some animals are more equal than others" crap has GOT to stop!
August 12th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Incidentally, demanding integrity from women is not misogyny.....you should look up those two words.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Jeana, the legal concept is called "in loco parentis", and it's used to get non-biological fathers to pay support. Yes it's legal (which is why I laugh in the face of Doc and others who essentially say "It wouldn't be legal if it wasn't fair").
And yes, it happens. Can't find the site on this new computer (had it bookmarked), but believe it or not it happens all the time. There is a woman in BC who was up to 9 men paying on one child.....since once CS is assigned it doesn't go away until age of majority, and those who stand "in loco parentis" are liable for support - regardless of whether or not support is already being paid (a function of the support amount being tied SOLELY to the man's income).
Yes, it happens all the time.
Still wondering why this issue is killing marriage?
August 12th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Factory,
All it would take is a judge with a brain to not only cancel the CS payments, but to order the woman to refund the money.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Incidentally, demanding integrity from women is not misogyny.....you should look up those two words.--Factory
Saying something in favor women does not necessarily mean one is a feminist. Throwing out the feminist label is a knee jerk reaction.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
This situation answers the question: "When lesbian-homosexual couple divorce, which party does the family judge discriminate against?"
Even when women desire to build a family, the government makes the man suffer.
A men is a fool for getting involved with women in America's current legal climate.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
#
Pankaj,
"If you are talking about LorMarie’s belief that he should pay"
I have not gone through what LorMarie wrote. So I have no idea about that. These are my opinions - things that are reasonable to me.
"The kids aren’t in dire need of anything"
How do you know that?
"and if they were, I bet the guy would provide. "
You bet, but you don't even know the guy. What validity does your feeling have over reality? Besides, why do you not get the same feeling about men who are sperm trapped? Those men that are forced to pay child support they cannot afford or even earn. Why is this man any different than all those "deadbeat" dads?
"In this case I can’t see how he could be obligated to pay anything."
Is this because the bio-mother in this case is a lesbian? Because had she been straight - even if the man did not even know of the existence of the child he is held liable for child support. Why are you so biased against lesbian mothers?
"He had a contract, did he not? Even if it was verbal. No."
So pre-nups should be respected too - just as they are written. In real life are they respected?
"When a pregnancy results accidentally, then I think both the female and male need to deal with it."
Define accident. If she fails in doing her part to be safe, why is he being held responsible?
"If the female wants to have a baby and gets pregnant on purpose, even if the guy agrees, then I really don’t think the guy should have to pay. "
Then there should be no CS for children born within wedlock
"I don’t see any hypocrisy." Isn't that what hypocrites always say?
August 12th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
LorMarie,
"Throwing out the feminist label is a knee jerk reaction."
I agree. And also, as a feminist, I'm kind of sad that being a called a feminist is an insult. Oh well.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Looking at this issue and based on what I've read on other issues, it seems like the only safe move for a man on this issue is not to donate sperm at all, since a donation has the potential to lead to financial responsibility, regardless of the actual relationship with the resulting child. Even if the donation is supposed to be completely anonymous, there is a chance that this could be overturned. This, in turn, could lead to him being obligated to child support, including back child support.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
LorMarie,
"Throwing out the feminist label is a knee jerk reaction."
I agree. And also, as a feminist, I'm kind of sad that being a called a feminist is an insult. Oh well.--Jeana
For me the problem is being given a label simply for having an opinion that differs from him. If I had to choose, I'd rather be called a womanist than a feminist. More important than womanist, I prefer humanist.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
oops, I meant "differs from his."
August 12th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Something that is of interest to me is the following.
What was it that this guy did that convinced this woman and the court that he had crossed the imaginary line between "role model" and "parent"?
What would they define as being a "role model"?
Is taking them on camping trips okay?... is teaching them how to ride a bicycle okay?... is offering them advice when they have a problem okay?
All of those things can be done by role models... but are also typically considered to be the job of a parent.
Furthermore... what if the guy had refused to even be a "role model" to these children... could he have then been sued for breach of contract?
I feel like this guy was trapped from the beginning... too little contact and he would have broken the contract... too much and he is now the parent.
What was the proper amount of involvement supposed to be according to these people?
While they keep asserting that his level of involvement made him the parent, I don't see where anyone defines what his role was specifically supposed to have been.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Norman L. wrote: "The point is it establishes a precedent."
Uh, which precedent is that? The court's decision clearly preserves the status quo, both legally and functionally (i.e. in real life).
Reminder: The court validated the child support obligation, because the man himself had acted -- and in fact had acknowledged and even asserted -- that he is the father. The court also rejected the mother's petition to increase the amount of child support from $250 per month.
As for the contract enforceability, it was unenforceable because it was a poorly drafted agreement that violated state law. You cannot sign a contract that violates state law, and then expect the state courts to enforce it. This is a longstanding and basic tenet of law, and it is hardly groundbreaking or setting a precedent to reaffirm it.
So please explain what you mean by precedent.
"This is typical of the type of thinking of those in the legal profession."
Wrong again. I twice wrote above the caveat that IANAL. (For those who don't know, this is a common abbreviation on the Internet for "I am not a lawyer".) So I am not in the legal profession, and my comments on the court's decision is just as valid, no more or less so, than any other member of the public.
"When they have to defend their system, they pretend that the system is totally "reactive"; and also, that each case is decided solely on it's individual merits with no repercussions."
I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not defending or commenting on any system as a whole. Rather, I am saying that in this specific case, in my opinion (which, again, is no more and no less valid than any other non-professional's view) the court made the correct decision, following New Mexico law and the facts of the matter in this case.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Jason writes: "What was it that this guy did that convinced this woman and the court that he had crossed the imaginary line between "role model" and "parent"?"
Answer, from the court's opinion:
New Mexico law says that a man is a child's father if he "openly holds out the child as his natural child and has established a personal, financial or custodial relationship with the child".
In this case, this man did all of these things, specifically:
1. "Father holds himself out to be the children’s father and has established a relationship with them."
2. "Father has enjoyed regular visitation with each child since birth. In fact, shortly after Mother filed the initial request for support, Father asserted his visitation rights by filing a motion alleging that Mother 'has interfered with [his] relationship to children by imposing arbitrary conditions on visitation.'"
3. "Further, in the stipulated order entered into in 2001, Father acknowledged that he is the natural father of children."
4. "Finally, Father is registered as both children’s father with the vital statistics bureau."
The court concluded these four facts established him as father of these children, under New Mexico law.
It is fairly plain relationship between the man and the children in this case easily go well beyond camping trips or bicycle riding or whathaveyou.
"While they keep asserting that his level of involvement made him the parent, I don't see where anyone defines what his role was specifically supposed to have been."
Uh, not quite. There is nothing ambiguous about these facts: This man (a) petitioned for visitation as a father, (b) agreed in a legal contract that he was in fact their father, and (c) has acted as if he were the father for all these years.
The fact is that this man should have consulted a better lawyer when he made the original agreements. He should have insisted on complying with New Mexico law about sperm donation, e.g. donated through a licensed doctor. He never should have acknowledged in a written contract -- and definitely never should have asserted in court -- that he was the father.
It is very hard to argue against this kind of clear and undisputed factual and legal record -- this is not a close case or hard decision at all. This man was trying to obtain the benefits of a being a parent, without incurring the obligations, and the court rightfully (in my view) rejected his appeal.
The court also rightfully (in my view) rejected the mother's claim to increase the amount of child support payments.
So the status quo prevails. Which was the right thing to do in this case, in my view.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Factory,
All it would take is a judge with a brain to not only cancel the CS payments, but to order the woman to refund the money.
----------------------------------------
Of course it would be easy to rectify Jeana. they WANT things this way. I thought that would be self-evident.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Knock Knock,
First of all, thank you for the information.
I have an important point to make though based upon the following:
"New Mexico law says that a man is a child's father if he "openly holds out the child as his natural child and has established a personal, financial or custodial relationship with the child"."
How on earth is is possible to act as a role model without establishing a personal relationship with the child?
It isn't... which means the agreement that the woman originally made with the guy was garbage.
The agreement was that he would act as a role model and not be the legal parent... however the mere act of being a role model makes him the legal father in New Mexico... this guy got conned.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
LorMarie, if you think that having a different opinion than me makes you "in the wrong" in my eyes, let me disabuse you of that notion right now. In fact, I LOVE it when people have different opinions.
What I am doing is pointing out hypocrisy and special treatment "to correct historic injustice"...both of which are DIRECTLY responsible for every single injustice men suffer (legally speaking). More of the same crap will NOT get support from me.
As for the feminist label, if it walks like a duck....
August 12th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Jason,
Knock Knock also pointed out that the guy repeatedly said he was the father. Maybe he should have always referred to himself as the "sperm donor."
August 12th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Jeana,
That is true... however so far as knock knock stated, the guy asserted that he was the "natural father".
That could have easily been interpreted as being the biological father, the guy who is genetically related to the child.
One thing I agree with that knock knock said is this guy needed a better lawyer to coach him in how to handle the situation.
Apparently merely saying that he was the "natural father" instead of the "sperm donor" was a very important distinction that isn't immediately clear to just anybody.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
If a genetic engineering company were to invent a method of creating viable sperm, thereby eliminating the need for men, it would quickly go out of business. The reason: women couples would sue the company for child support whenever they broke up. The principle in all of these cases is that whoever manufactured the sperm is liable for child support. There is no question of suing the non-custodial lesbian (NCL) for child support. The family court will pierce the corporate veil (or burka) of the company and hold the principals personally liable, for good measure.
As I have mentioned in the past, I come here to experience a level terror only obtainable by identifying with victims of the family court who are saddled with devastating and extortionate child support obligations, thrown into jail, forced into abysmal enslavement in the Cimmerian circles of hell or deprived of their livelihood altogether, barred from ever seeing their children again and taunted for good measure by merciless judges. The fear inspired by these frightful images and stories greatly exceed anything one might experience by watching a horror film featuring the most unspeakably gruesome and inhumane tortures. It takes me hours to recover--but the warning not to get involved and the sense of relief that I don't have kids of my own lasts for weeks.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Xlp Thlplylp,
Actually, I think that if you are totally anonymous, you are protected. So the company is not protected.
And remember, not every family experiences the bleak outcomes you talk about.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
I am not knowledgeable about the law but perhaps those entering into such non-support agreements need simply add another provision to the agreement: That if child support is ever awarded for any reason, the party receiving support shall immediately be liable for reimbursing the child support payor such costs in equal amount and timing.
Now obviously there may be problems in collecting the reimbursement (as would not be the case in collecting the support) but at least it would establish a liability which may be enforceable through the contract courts by way of garnishment, liens, etc. It may also act as a deterrent to the party ever seeking support.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Jeana,
Why do you suppose that women like LorMarie don't want to be labelled feminists?
It is because your movement has become so bankrupt and destructive that few decent people want to be associated with it. Any more than people want to be associated with fascism or communism or Baathism.
And before you say 'oh well, you MRAs are pretty nasty', at least we are not putting innocent women in jail for crimes they did not commit. Whereas your mob are happy for more innocent men to go to jail.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Jenna,
"And remember, not every family experiences the bleak outcomes you talk about."
That memory does no good, since the number of less bleak outcomes is still vanishingly small, and the probability of a bad outcome (around 50%) is far more than the probability of ruin at which I could take or leave starting a family. Even if financial ruin were 10% likely, I would avoid families. Your expected income after marriage must be reduced by the following term: the probability of divorce times the cost of divorce. That cost is too high.
There is a difference of opinion about which outcomes are merely bleak, and which are unendurable. The likely scenarios I mentioned were unendurable and horrific. The usual course of family life itself is bleak, consisting primarily in a day-in day-out struggle for a few pennies. For many, the reward for taking a less fulfilling better paying job for supporting a family is vilification as an oppressor by the partner who is less willing or able to take on less fulfilling but more remunerative employment, and by the wider elegant society of forward thinking opinionators and busybodies. The willingness to take on less fulfilling work is used against the "oppressor" in divorce court, which summarily redistributes imputed income from the oppressor to the oppressed party based on the oppressor's historical pattern of economic servitude.
Now it occurred to me that the precise phrase you used "not every family experiences the bleak outcomes" may be correct, in the sense that overall, the family may be living rather well, or at least, in relative freedom and possibly with some assistance from the state; while the family's estranged oppressor lives in his own excrement in a jail cell; or on the street in a hellish penury with his wages garnished; with stupendous child support arrears that cannot be earned in several lifetimes, with no possibility of downward modification; and with incessantly calling, threatening creditors. (This is to say nothing of the criminal scam artists who call from untraceable phones demanding money after the statute of limitations expires.)
August 12th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Nick S.,
“Any more than people want to be associated with fascism or communism or Baathism.”
And yet people still call themselves Republicans even though the party is nothing more than corporate fascists. Why would that be? Because conservatives control the media and public opinion. I do not listen to what the conservatives tell me to think. I am not tricked into calling myself a progressive because “liberal” has such a bad name (thanks to them). (Progressives are actually NOT the same as liberals; and I consider myself both.) People can choose to be whatever they want. I know that feminists don’t hate men. It’s you people who don’t know that.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
I just watched the video. I thought the women would have been more compelling. Usually I'd agree with them. But I can't this time. Although they made good points. But it doesn't seem to apply to this man (in my opinion).
August 13th, 2008 at 12:11 am
I've looked at the video also (it was necessary to click the link since the embedded video does not work for me). This is a difficult question: the state does have the right to void contracts it deems unenforceable. It may be in this case that the test for de facto fatherhood was met. (You have to disregard my comments about the sperm donor being automatically liable above--I was being dramatic, but it is a good principle in practice.)
But in the end, from my perspective, the risks are too great. It makes no difference how compelling the arguments are, if the conclusion is that someone else is entitled to your money, for whatever reason. And for me, the object is to keep my money and to not incur liabilities. Don't be a sperm donor. It has the same financial character as purchasing a put option on a stock: limited upside if the stock moves below the strike price of the option, and unlimited downside if the stock moves above the strike price. The strike price of the child support put option is nominal if you remain anonymous; but if your identity is revealed, or some court decides in favor of a custodial lesbian parent, your goose is cooked.
In general, the child support "investment" is a bet that the cost of child support will remain at or below a certain threshold; however, the cost could rise arbitrarily high above the threshold. What you gain from your investment is the difference between the threshold and the actual cost of raising a child. This means that what you gain is necessarily limited by the threshold itself, if the cost of raising the child were to go to zero. On the other hand, if the cost rises above the threshold, you're in trouble, because you cannot decide to support some other less expensive child. Economists have a name for such thresholds: they are called reservation prices. The reservation price for raising a child is the price at which you would be indifferent to raising a child or not raising a child. At a certain cost, if it were high enough, you might take or leave having a child.
The notion of a reservation price runs headlong into the family court, which generally rules that there is no price at which you should be indifferent to raising a child--if you have a child. I don't have a solution for thus--yet. It is on this basis that the court structures child support as a fine payable to the court, with interest.
Now if it were up to me, the system of child support would be more flexible. Estranged parents would pay child support but not necessarily for their own children: for possibly other children that they could afford. This would enable custodial parents to bar non-custodial parents from visitation, which is what they want to do anyway, and non-custodial parents would not have to pay the support of children above the price at which they would be indifferent to raising a child. Well, maybe that's a little cynical, but one has to be willing to entertain bad ideas, until a good one comes along.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Knock, Knock,
Sorry if I gave the wrong impression - I was not addressing you in particular and it did not even occur to me if you were a lawyer or not. I was just making the statement about the legal profession in general.
As far as the decision maintaining the status quo, I will hold my breath (until the next time this happens..probably won't be very long til it does).
August 13th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Xlp Thlplylp,
Courts have a lot of discretion. Courts have take away biological children from gays/lesbians just because they’re gay/lesbian. They can throw out contracts as they see fit. Which really isn’t fair if you consider that the people entering the contracts are adults of sound mind. I can’t change my mind about other contracts. There was a case I briefly mentioned above where a man made a legal contract which included something about if the surrogate changed her mind, she’d have to forfeit a $10,000 fee. Not only did the 1st judge ignore that when the surrogate did swipe the guy’s kids, he had to pay child support. How can that be? At least 2 higher courts reversed everything and made her give back the money. But it is a little scary that courts can decide whatever they want and ignore contracts and common sense.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:39 am
meant to say, "until something like this happens.."
August 13th, 2008 at 3:48 am
Jeana,
If you can't answer my points, then just go off on a tangent. A lot of your arguments are becoming more shrill and desperate as time goes on.
The point I was making is that LorMarie doesn't want to be associated with feminists because she is smart enough to know that it's not a good idea to be associated with such a destructive and evil movement. Being as obtuse as you always are, you didn't pick this up in your response to her. And yet it was obvious to anyone else. Instead you whined about how being a feminist has a negative image. Poor baby.
I don't agree with much of what LorMarie writes. But she seems to be more honest than you are.
August 13th, 2008 at 8:02 am
It seems like the partner of the woman that gave birth would be responsible for child support. They signed a contract with the sperm donor that THEY (the lesbians) would be the legal parents, and the sperm donor would be a male role model if he desired.
That contract should have made the partner of the mother, the other legal parent, liable for child support. It just goes to show that the male will always be held accountacble no matter what the situation, and any contract he has made ahead of time is worthless. Another lessen learned.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Nick S,
Perhaps I am obtuse, because I did not see anything in anything that LorMarie wrote that indicated to me that she thinks that feminism is an evil and destructive movement. From things she has written, she sounds to me to be a feminist. I've heard some of you say that way more men are really MRAs but don't know it because they don't associate with your movement. So what's the difference?
August 13th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Jeana,
The point I am trying to make is that the reason why LorMarie and many other women are so sensitive about being labelled feminists is that they are becoming more aware of what a destructive movement it is. And so they don't want to be associated with it.
Why else do you suppose she is sensitive about being defined that way?
August 13th, 2008 at 9:59 am
No good dead goes unpunished.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:13 am
admodius, it wasn't a good deed
August 13th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Knock Knock,
Today it's sperm donors that didn't use a physician, tomorrow it's the world. If any man donates sperm after reading this ruling, he deserves exactly what he gets.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:27 am
"And remember, not every family experiences the bleak outcomes you talk about."
Jeana,
It must be nice making these statements while sitting on your protected side of the fence. All I know is if what happens to fathers happened to even one mother, you and your ilk would assure that there was blood in the streets.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Xlp Thlplylp,
Good for you.... keep up the good work and never marry or have children. You'll live longer, a lot happier, and never have anybody take away everything you spent your life working for.
It's happening, men are not falling into the marriage / child trap anymore and all the women do about it is whine about how there are no good guys out there. We'll ladies, your counterparts tore down the "good guys" in front of their children and the new generation of male knows better.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Mike A,
Believe it or not, it does happen to mothers too. Not as often as fathers. But you’ve never heard of mothers losing their kids to men who abuse and molest them? You can blame me and my ilk, but the problem really is manipulative spouses who work the system.
Never marrying and never having children might be the safest option, but it is also the loneliest. No kids, no grandkids. Just you, alone forever. There’s got to be a better way.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
"Never marrying and never having children might be the safest option, but it is also the loneliest. No kids, no grandkids. Just you, alone forever. There’s got to be a better way."
Not lonely at all, especially given the voices I hear in my head! I'm currently living under an avalanche of books--I have more reading to do than I could possibly accomplish in several lifetimes (most of it in mathematics, mathematical economics and game theory, and related disciplines). I cannot afford the distraction of a family, even if it were remotely possibly that I could make the day-in, day-out sacrifices for them. There is also the cat. Aside from nagging occasionally, he is utterly without guile.
And now for my revolutionary reform of the child support system. Child support needs to be decoupled from individual parents. This means there would be an agency that would collect child support to go into a pool. Custodial parents would need to make a case for a given level of support. Non-custodial parents would pay what they can afford. Their support would go into the pool, but not necessarily to their own children: only to those children their level of support could afford. If it happens that they can afford to support their own children, they would be allowed visitation. This arrangement ensures that parents have relationships with children they can afford, and it does not deny children child support. What it accomplishes threefold: it discourages divorce and separation because this new arrangement will adjust child support levels to those determined by reservation prices for raising children; it discourage custodial parents from asking for extortionate child support, because the support will be coming from the state, and not the father; it encourages non-custodial parents who want to see their children to pay at least the level of support required for visitation (which may be the level set by the state or some other higher level).
Non-custodial parents would be required to pay into the system for as long as their children are supported by it, but the children their funds support might not be their own. This system will tend to defuse antagonism between custodial and non-custodial parents, and make parents responsible for those children they can reasonably afford. Also the arrangement recognizes that the breakup of a marriage should be enforced so that economic ties between the former family are not maintained (alimony may be a consideration--this does not rule out that possibility), but the interest in the state of protecting the welfare of children is maintained.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I would ask you to pardon the typos in my previous post, but they really are inexcusable. Anyway, conservatives, or neo-cons at any rate, should love the idea of decoupling the finances of the custodial and non-custodial parents. This new universal child support agency could easily fall under the Patriot Act by amendment, and would be run out of Homeland Security. Anyone who failed to pay the requisite child support would be designated an enemy combatant of the United States and sent to Guantanamo. The family court system would be abolished, replaced by a new system under the control of the federal government, to ensure the ever increasing scope of its power over ordinary citizens.
With the connection to Homeland Security, bipartisan support of this program is assured.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
"You can blame me and my ilk, but the problem really is manipulative spouses who work the system."
Disagree. The problem is feminists and general pro-govt interventionists who put the system up there. Had it not been for the existence of the system, the spouses would have still misbehaved, but no taxpayer dollar funded govt attack dogs (CSEA, Family courts) would have hunted down the poor unfortunate spouse of the manipulator.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
"Anyway, conservatives, or neo-cons at any rate, should love the idea of decoupling the finances of the custodial and non-custodial parents."
Wrong to group conservatives with neo cons - (there is a reason they are called "NEO" conservatives. Because they are not conservative at all. In fact, they have followed every single tennet of "liberal" philosophy and are rumoured to be disgruntled democrats - disgruntled because the "liberals" werent belligerent enough for them)
And no neo-cons will actually love to get govt to intervene and take both their incomes and then dole it out through some large bureaucracy.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
All right, forget the business about neo-cons (except that they won't be happy until the planet is obliterated in a terminal nuclear war). The hope of mathematical economists and game theorists is to elevate the level of discussion of economics above ideological debate. One shouldn't debate (or bait) ideologues in any case. And occasional facetiousness will undermine my message for those who lack the intellectual discipline not to be distracted from it.
But there are good economic reasons to create this new child support institution. It will reduce, if not entirely eliminate, antagonisms between parents over child support, because the state will consider the needs and responsibilities of each party independently. No parent will be directly responsible for the welfare of any particular child, though parents will be responsible for the welfare of children through the institution. In effect, the institution will make substitution of child support possible. It will honor economic incentives and disincentives that the family court systematically removes. The family court insists that no level of support is unreasonable in principle. It maintains that the notion of the reservation price of child support--the price at which a person would be indifferent to raising a child--breaks down once you have a child. This is economically unsound. In effect, when you get divorced, your children are not your own, if you are estranged from them. The institution will guarantee that parents relationships with their children will change after divorce.
This will reduce the economic incentive to divorce. Parents will need to apply to the new institution for support, and they will have to pay in to support the children they can afford. In the new system, children will not be pawns that one parent can use against the other.
I need to work out further details, but I believe some system like this could be made to work.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
"But there are good economic reasons to create this new child support institution. "
Sorry there is no need to have any such institution. Either couples manage it between themselves to take care of kids. Any neglect or abuse of children shall be prosecuted. How the two individuals manage it is no one else's business.
Everything else you said stinks of communism. Forget that, make people responsible for their own lives, that includes getting married and getting divorced. No govt involvement in institution of marriage - including any recognition of the contract of marriage.
August 13th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Jeana,
I've yet to see an truly abusive father get custody, heck even the best dad's can't get custody unless they have millions of dollars to fight with and then an appellate court will still give it to the mom. Although I have heard of poor mom's loosing their children to abusive spouses, but in reality those cases seem to be that mom was so obviously unfit to be a mother that she lost custody (which is quite a feat even for grossly unfit mothers) so the only recourse is to play the "feminist - victim" card and call dad an abuser.
As far as not marrying, it's not lonely at all. In fact single men live happier and longer lives and they do it while having non-committal relationships with independent, self-sufficient, women where the level of happiness far exceeds that of any marriage.
Lastly, once again, it's easy for you to make these statements from your fortress of solitude. If there were even a small percent of risk that a women could loose everything she's worked for and accomplished all her life (along with the most precious thing in her life - her children) just by getting married, then women would be the first yelling for the abolition of matrimony.
August 13th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Mike,
Jeana is reading NOW's memos. This claim is directly out of it. And somehow instead of blaming incompetent judges put into place by a feminist socialist govt, she chooses to blame MRM, just as the NOW's memo does. Its classic misdirection.
I feel for the judges too targeted unfairly. I bet Jeana if challenged to bring forth one case of where the judge handed the custody to a convicted child abuser male, she will fail. What she thinks are abusers are alleged abusers - claimed to be so without any proof by mothers. But then we know women never lie - do they?
August 13th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
"Everything else you said stinks of communism. Forget that, make people responsible for their own lives, that includes getting married and getting divorced. No govt involvement in institution of marriage - including any recognition of the contract of marriage."
Nonsense. The institution I described is hardly communist or even socialist. (Many institutions are compatible with the neo-classical economic model--not merely free market capitalism, which plays no formal role in the development of this theory.) It's a rational response to the failure of the family court system to equitably redistribute income after divorce. Add to that the probability that the government will get out of marriage. This is lower than the probability that the moon will crash into the earth next week. In fact the government is moving in the opposite direction, by making unmarried couples responsible for their former partner's welfare if they separate.
The libertarian system you envision is politically unsustainable in a democracy (though it might work in a dictatorship). The reason is that there aren't enough private goods to keep leaders in power, so they have to rely on public goods. The economic reason for this is pretty straightforward: if the government could have gotten away without allocating any public goods, it would have done so already. (Leaders typically allocate a mix of public and private goods.) Accordingly, the question is which public goods are to be allocated. Ensuring that children are adequately supported is considered a public good.
It's not clear to me how you would "make people responsible for their own lives"--this is surely not what you intended. A government policy of nonintervention wouldn't "make" anyone more or less responsible, because the government would not be involved at all.
August 13th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Mike and Pankaj,
Here is a link of many documents (books with descriptions) called “Are ‘Good Enough’ Parents Losing Custody to Abusive Ex-Partners?” I’m sure you’ll disagree with a lot that’s on this site. It’s a long list. There really is no doubt that abusive spouses can and do manipulate the system. Even when the court substantiated abuse, men got custody or partial custody. I did go thru all of these and more than once I saw some information that abusive men won custody more often than non-abusive men because the abusive men were manipulative and knew how to play the system and courts (like the women you know). The “nice” dads were the ones losing out.
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/dv.html
August 13th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Xlp Thlplylp:
Your program would identify those enemy combatants even before they fell behind in payments through information obtained by wiretapping, video surveillance, and seized emails. Additionally, the government would be able to get the truth out of men about how many children they really fathered through waterboarding. The men would be waterboarded until they admitted to the number of children the government assumed they had. It will not be unusual for men to admit to fathering 15 or 20 children, thereby substantially increasing the coffers of the universal child support agency and the pay of the CEO and board (since it is a private organization, of course, with ties to the oil industry, Dubai, and the Bush family).
August 13th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
So how many more abusive women got custody than non-abusive women? I'm not sure what that was, but if you could point me in the direction of where to find that information I'd appreciate it.
Namely, what's the data on abusive vs non-abusive women?
August 13th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Jeana,
I must plausibly neither confirm nor deny that my program would take the form you suggest, under a neo-con administration--although this certainly is a possibility. The proposal to privatize the profits and socialize the losses of the universal child support agency merits serious consideration--the model is hardly without precedent (e.g., Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). I plausibly deny this also, with the caveat that it's for the children.
Of course, other possibilities are not excluded. It could be a new government agency, separate from Homeland Security.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6XPLguPHzHoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA61&dq=The+Committee+for+Justice+for+Women+and+the+Orange+County,+North+Carolina,+Women%27s+Coalition.+(1991).+Contested+Custody+Cases+In+Orange+County,+North&ots=M9jWj8TwAx&sig=tYFfHDFVwtzetQ8xifhsv5HGvSE#PPA63,M1
Jeana - know your company.
Read that book. Its "deconstruction" attempt against PAS simply because it is believed as being used against women who use allegations of child abuse against the father. Once an allegation is made, there obviously follows an investigation, but if the investigation finds that nothing like that happened - dont you think there is something wrong with a mother that claims their own father sexually abused the kids? Smoking gun - no mention of unproven or false allegations.
Yet the entire book assumes that PAS is only "anti-female" defense "Tactic". They even challenge people with PhDs and publications to their names in Psychology and Psychiatry. Still believe these people have the best interests of children at heart?
From all the list of the publications listed on that page, I have been through the top 6 and all of them are either heavily "feminist" in their writing (ignoring of facts, vague and broad generalizations, lack of proof) characterisitics. I will continue to go through them, but most of this research has not been made public. So I can cover only what I can find. Since it wont be the first time a feminist researcher has "cooked" data (eg. Superbowl DV stat), I have to be highly skeptical of the data and comb through it finely. Hope you don't mind.
Maybe you ought to go to the root of the document, rather than simply glancing over "extract" stuff. Many a times, social scientists (all of them, even ones on the men's side) have a problem with putting the conclusion (carriage) before the data(horse). You have to really and carefully read what they write, what data they present - source of data and characterization of the sources. Once you do that, and you check the biases of these researchers, you will find something much closer to the true situation than simple "extracts" from a comprehension. Dig in - this wont take that long.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
"It's a rational response to the failure of the family court system to equitably redistribute income after divorce. Add to that the probability that the government will get out of marriage. This is lower than the probability that the moon will crash into the earth next week. In fact the government is moving in the opposite direction, by making unmarried couples responsible for their former partner's welfare if they separate."
Lets see - someone long time ago had a "rational response" to a problem- they created CSEA, and Marriage license (thus making marriage into a legal contract, not a religious and ethical one)
Now that the system has been proven to be a failure - what is the solution being suggested - ANOTHER bureaucratic institution.
You know what the definition of insanity is - right? Even if we ignore the concept of free-market (I don't know what free market capitalism has to do with stopping the growth of govt bureaucracy - It has much more to do with small govt libertarianism, personal responsibility and freedom).
If you think your govt will not obey the people's wishes, yet your solution is to give it another club to hit the people on the head with - Brilliant! Every freakin bureaucracy has a natural tendency to employ unworthy useless people much more than worthy and useful people. I don't get why people are so trusting in govt institution's morality anyway. Could you explain or give me one example of a govt bureaucracy that has performed efficiently or even correctly to satisfy its establishment objectives?
August 13th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Jeana here is an example of bias
"Walker and Meloy9 define domestic violence as "an abuser's attempt to use physical, sexual or psychological force to take away a woman's power and control over her life."
What is wrong with this definition? Take two minutes if you don't already see it.
Then take a look at this
"Battering includes physical violence, sexual or psychological force, or any other force the batterer harnesses to maintain control."
Note the sentence stops short of defining what the target of control is. So if I used my hands to control a car steering, that would fit into this definition of Battering. Am I battering my car? Its no accident - researchers spend hours over each line when they publish - so to stop there is completely intentional. Question is - why is the definition so lax? Maybe maintaining control over ones own life or even the welfare of the children could be used as Battering - could it not?
So far what I have gone through - it seems like a supremacist document. Meaning - it is focussed on not giving men ANY custodial access to children - simply based on the woman's allegations. The last two seemed promising, but ended up with the same conclusion - Too much generalization, too much cooking going on.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Great interview Glenn... Thank you for all your hard work well all appreciate it. God Bless..
August 14th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Pankaj,
The link I provided had tons of studies, articles, and reports that were definitely from the female perspective and were about abuse that women and children experience and allege to have experienced. Opposite of what is talked about on this blog.
“So far what I have gone through - it seems like a supremacist document. Meaning - it is focused on not giving men ANY custodial access to children - simply based on the woman's allegations.”
I didn’t find that at all. It was more about how very often males really did get custody, even with substantiated abuse. I found it to be pretty disturbing. Just because it’s opposite of what you want to believe doesn’t mean that all the studies are feminist lies.
August 14th, 2008 at 3:01 am
"Just because it’s opposite of what you want to believe doesn’t mean that all the studies are feminist lies."
Are you willing to answer critical questions that I have about these studies?
Here try one - Its the central one I have across all these papers.
1. Which of these cases were substantiated abuse? By substantiated - I mean convicted offenses.
2. Some studies are based on questionnaires - filled out by mothers. What precautions were taken to identify false accusers and were their questionnaires removed from the data collection if they were infact identified?
3. Some studies take mother's perspective (via interview) - but make judgements on % of fathers who were abusers that won custody of children. How did they validate their data?
4. Why are fathers excluded from every single study? Or is there a way to pass a judgment on people in their absence and still maintain validity? That too in cases of serious allegations like child sexual abuse of their own sons and daughters.
5. Why do these studies not provide a measure of failed to be proven accusations of child abuse and sexual abuse by fathers of children
6. Why should violence against mothers only - be considered as a factor in deciding in child custody? A father can hate the mother, but love the children - is it not possible? Or is taking away his children another way of punishing him for offenses a regular court would not or has not punished him for?
August 15th, 2008 at 12:43 am
The unfortunate bottom line in this country is that fathers are being made to seem "replaceable/" Fathers are used and then when it is convenient discarded. It is destroying our culture.
As a mother of two small children I know how crucial a good father (or even a good male role model) is for the healthy development of a child. It is true that there is NO EQUALITY IN THE COURTS! Men will always get the short end of the stick. I think this guy was an idiot for getting himself involved in such a strange situation, but a contract should be upheld and let's face it, almost $700 a month is a big chunk of change if you're making under $100,000.
I feel bad for the way men are treated and disrespected, even men who make STUPID decisions like this.
August 15th, 2008 at 7:23 am
This ruling could be opening a Pandora's Box for some of those clinical sperm donors as well. There's been a growing number of clinical-sperm-donor babies seeking and finding their sperm donor dads, now that they're old enough to want to know who their dad is.
There was a show about this a few months ago, but I can't remember which one.
There were several of these children that have requested the information about their donor dads and the dads then consented to allowing them the information. Some of these donors also now have some contact with the children.
This is basically the same scenario as the one above. What do you want to bet that the contracts for clinical donors are soon thrown out the window, when those mothers sue for child support from the donor fathers they're hunting down?
In the case above the other lesbian parent should be paying support, since they are the other legal parent of the child. How do they get away with no responsibility at all.
All sperm donors, clinical or otherwise, should take heed and be forewarned.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Jeana Says:
"The link I provided had tons of studies, articles, and reports that were definitely from the female perspective"
This is actually a serious problem.
Credible research should NEVER come from a biased perspective of any sort. For research to have any value it needs to be impartial, it needs to be free of bias.
For example, would you trust the results if I provided a ton of studies, articles, and reports that were definitely from the tobacco industries perspective that indicated that smoking was perfectly safe and free of health consequences?
Real scientists goto great lengths to ensure that their studies are as bias free as possible... they demand intellectual independence and often do studies in a double blind fashion where even the scientists who collected the data won't know what the results are until some other group analyzes the data.
One of the groups listed on that web page you provided is called "The Committee for Justice for Women and the Orange County, North Carolina, Women's Coalition."
Exactly how much credability should we really ascribe to the results of an investigation they purport to do with regard to gender bias?
How much credability would you give to a group called "The committe for Justice for Men and the Orange County, North Carolina, Men's Coalition", if they did an investigation of gender bias and asserted that men were on the losing end?
I personally would give neither group credit as they have a vested interest in generating a certain finding.
Furthermore, most of the "studies" you list aren't even in real scientific journals, most are over 15 years old, and some wouldn't even be considered to be real studies at all (one consisted of interviews with 60 women involved in divorce proceedings... first of all the sample is too small, and second the sample is too limited to draw any sort of reliable conclusion at all)
I know you aren't a scientist Jeana... but what you need to do is be more skepticle of articles and actually read through them, not merely paying attention to what they conclude... but how the study was constructed, who performed it, what organization are they with, who funded them, where were they published, did they have to do through a peer review process, how old is the article etc...
ALL of these things are increadibly important.
Lastly, if you are serious about looking into this issue... I suggest that you do your own research, don't just let a web page find all the sources for you. Goto your local university library, sign up for access to online journals... do lots of your own reading. Having someone else collect up your resources for you and you just acting like that is good enough is the same as a kid who copies stuff out of the encyclopedia and calls it a research report to hand in to class.
Research this issue the same way you'd expect your children to research something for a school research report... that means finding the articles yourself and picking through them with a fine toothed comb.
August 15th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Jeana:
"Never marrying and never having children might be the safest option, but it is also the loneliest. No kids, no grandkids. Just you, alone forever".
As long as someone can use the threat of legal force the government offers in order to obtain an "entitlement" then the best way is to not play that game if you don't want to be burned. Lonely forever? That's a bit overly dramatic as humans don't live forever (thank the powers that be). Besides, that's what friends are for and there's a lot less legalese involved.
Jeana:
"There’s got to be a better way".
Pankaj:
"No govt involvement in institution of marriage - including any recognition of the contract of marriage".
There's the "better way" right there.
August 16th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Subject: Tangent on the use of the term "primary caregiver."
Re: "For example, if one parent has been the primary caregiver during a marriage and upon divorce earns significantly less than the other parent, I believe that there should be child support."
I think the term "primary caregiver" needs to be re-considered. In its current usage it undervalues the caregiving provided by the person who spends more time outside the home earning a wage -- still most often the male. The wage is also a primary part of the home economy and the care provided the child. The child needs both hands-on attention and food on the table.
Perhaps a better set of terms might be the "home-based caregiver" and the "economic caregiver" (other suggestions are welcome). Both should be valued.
Even with these new titles we could still become trapped into labeling each parent as one or the other, while the reality is that the roles are shared. Actually, there are probably a dozen easily identifiable "caregiving" roles. Identifying them and who fulfills them will help clarify the value of both parents.
What I am suggesting is the term "primary caregiver" contradicts the ideal of "shared parenting" and creates a rhetorical advantage for whomever is able to assume the label. By creating and using labels which more accurately recognize the full contribution of each parent to the whole family we can hopefully change the terms of the child care debate in case of divorce or non-marriage.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
The feminist site that jeana provided has a lot of statistics from so-called studies that have been purposely slanted in favor of women. Like the statements from NOW that claim a third of women are battered victims, and the number one cause of death of pregnant women is murder by their babies father. Insanity abounds! There's a method to their madness, and it has nothing to do with the facts.
When studies are conducted in a way that guarantees a certain outcome, it's not statistics-it's propaganda.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
No, Jeana is right. If we go with the fact that 1/4 of all DV is male initiated and non-reciprocal, 1/4 of all DV is female initiated and non-reciprocal, and 1/2 of all DV is reciprocal...it would stand to reason that at least a few abusive men get custody.
How many?
Well, assuming there isn't some kind of deviation (pretty sure there would be) regarding "fitness" of the patrent, since in 8% of cases men get sole custody...leme see, my math sucks...
Out of every 1000 custody cases, 80 men and 850 women gain sole custody....so that would be 5 male abusers (that initiated violence) getting custody for every 212 or so women abusers (that initiated violence) if we go with the idea that 25% of couples experience DV over the lifetime of the relationship..
That's 42 times more female abusers gaining custody than male....
Gee Jeana, you sure you want to open this can of worms?
August 19th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Jeana:
"Never marrying and never having children might be the safest option, but it is also the loneliest. No kids, no grandkids. Just you, alone forever".
---------------------------------
Factory: That's 100% true Jeana. It IS lonely, and it DOES suck. But it beats the hell out of the alternative.
Not to mention that many of us here (myself included) didn't want this to happen, did everything they could to prevent it from happening, and it happened anyway.
So, instead of never having a family...we get to have one for a while, have it taken away, and get billed crippling amounts to sustain it even though we're excluded from it.
Then we get to live out our lives lonely, broke, and coping with the giant hole in our lives that used to have a family in it.
Why do you keep insisting that #2 holds any more hope than #1 did is beyond me. I know guys who let this happen 3 times before they wised up.
One lives with his parents (at 35 years old), because 70% of his income (after tax) goes to his 2 ex's and "their" kids...even though he never sees them. (supress the urge to blame him, in both cases the wife cheated for years, and bided their time till they had "enough children" before springing the divorce on him. And yes, he's a pushover "nice guy" that if they didn't want they shouldn't have married. He hates women with a passion now. I don't blame him)
I guess it might be tough to wrap your head around the concept that it isn't just one or two, or even a "tiny percentage" of women doing this....
It's nearly half of all women.
So I suppose there's always a chance to find a "good woman"....just a matter of time right? Just have to "take a chance"? And let a few years go by, so she can take you like that last one did...and you can go to your grave with alimony/ child support bills still in the mailbox.
Oh yeah, and die lonely, childless (practically speaking), and EVEN MORE BROKE.
Yeah. Great "solution".
It's patently obvious you have zero sense of empathy.
August 24th, 2008 at 10:48 am
This shows just another way men get screwed by women they don't even know.
It's the woman that wants the babies and go to the sperm banks, usually becasue they can't keep a man long enough for them to get pregant.
Since it the woman that WANTS to have the baby of a man she has no knowledge of who he is, the man SHOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE to pay that woman anything. After all she wouldn't have the child if it weren't for the sperm banks.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Jeana you said, "Never marrying and never having children might be the safest option, but it is also the loneliest. No kids, no grandkids. Just you, alone forever". I can agree with that... the thing is... most people… well some people do not want to remain in a true to their word. I am a true believer in keeping your word and remaining faithful in a marriage or relationship. You have to give kudos to the guy for giving of himself to the kids, but then the guy needs a good slap on the back of his head. The good ole boy system within the Family Courts cares nothing for “rocking the boat” and the “betterment of the child” means nothing to them… here’s what it’s called, “status quo”! I despise the Family Court System and most of what it stands for. The destruction of the family does not enter into their decision making process. I am a divorced father with two boys and I was paying $500 a month, after the EX listened to her friends and I am now paying twice that much! She left me for that “greener” grass and found it to be a field of clovers!
I am now remarried and the boys love their step-mom, if you are searching for love you need to understand that heartache is a close second!
September 15th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
He "took an active role so he is liable"
So when the courts remove a man from an active role he is still liable.
It's only about money and the excuses to get it.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Ronda's definition of Daddy is someone with a visitation schedule. Nice. That's ONE woman's perspective.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Child support violates the 7th, 13th and 14th amendments as well as numberous debters prison laws. I hope one the whole of America gets to feel the the unfair wrath of these laws.
September 18th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
The two women who are defending the lesbian mother show that they are typical man-bashers who love to see a man get financially milked by a woman.
My advice to all men: Do not become a sperm donor for anybody, especially for lesbians.
September 18th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
While I'm at it, let me also say that feminists are not your friend, never have been, and never will be.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Guys are given enough of a bad rap. This is just absurd. A prenup should be honored between two intelligent, sane, and reasonable people. This is the state taking over the family. It is a Constitutional issue. Fight it to the Supreme Court!
October 27th, 2008 at 2:21 am
Okay, for those of you sure that this is a case of the father with money leaving the poor mom starving, let me lay out a couple of facts of this case.
Janna Mintz was a trust fund baby well financed by her family's computer hardware business at least until 1999 (and probably to this day). At that time, she owned a six-thousand square foot house in a sprawling section of Santa Fe.
Her assertion of "working part time" is disingenuous as her Shaklee business was not a revenue stream to maintaining a household with two children. At that, since prior to the birth of her second child, she has had several "downline" salespeople generating revenue for her in that MLM structure.
Furthermore, when the children were toddlers, Mintz put less than part-time hours into that business. She spent at least as much time shopping for new furniture, going to art classes, and studying geneology. Substantial amount of weekly childcare was done by a babysitter or Zoernig, "Shocking" (her term) is that she give the impression that she has needed money, two children notwithstanding.
Zoernig has been a musician, music teacher, and car mechanic -- hardly rolling in dough.
Also, that she is now pointing out Zoernig's clear participation as a father during the time the two children were toddlers (which was, in fact, the case) contradicts her litigious actions against Zoernig over custordy at that time in part by asserting that he was _not_ a sufficiently active father. She has, it seems, changed her spin to suit her current round of litigation.
December 12th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
The Court was right. Zoernig is an idiot. You mess around with lesbians, you're going to get burned.
December 28th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
The problem is, this is a single mother who went to court because she can' t take of these children. The judge should order custody of the children to their biological father. And if the father doesn't comply the judge should throw him in jail for contempt. It's a simply solution.
1. The judge knows that the mother doesn't have the ability to raise these children herself, because she came to court begging for assistance.
2. The judge knows that the biological father has the means, because he order him to pay child support.
3. The judge know he is capable because he and his wife are already raising 3 other children.
January 5th, 2009 at 8:24 am
After watching the cut from the program concerning the sperm donor father who was a good role model to his sperm donar child, as agreed to by contract, I am at a loss for words.
This man did his lesbian friends a favor, gave them the sperm they required to have offspring, with the understanding that he not be held financially responsible.
Sadly our divorce and support laws have reached a point where many men, of which I am one, have realized that the system is in grave error, as they punish men and are extrememly biased.
Yes I am divorced... my ex has custody and I pay and will pay for the rest of my life - the courts in their misplaced political wisdom have given me a life sentence with little opportunity to begin a new with another woman. As a result I continue to live in my slum apartment, like many men, and will not again commit to any woman, until the laws change.