- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
I came across this story last night. Am I the only one who sees a problem here?
It seems to me that the non-biologic mother should be the one paying child support. I am for equal rights for everyone, but then you have to face equal consequences too. The woman was also a mother and legal guardian to these children, not the donor. As the gay rights movement gains ground and adoption and marriages become allowed I feel that there should also be accompanying laws that hold them to the same consequences as heterosexual couples after divorces and shared parental responsibility.
All that aside, the man who made the donation in order to help the women out, as a friend no doubt, should not be responsible for these children in any way. That was their original understanding. If he is paying child support he better demand joint custody or vistation rights as well. At a minimum he should sue the other woman for his money since she is technically the second parent from the relationship. I would go out of my way to make her out to be a deadbeat mother and and an abandoner. I would drag her name through the mud publically.
If he gets no compensation from her then I would fight for father's righst to the children. Make sure that the mother looks horrible and create a mockery of the same court that ruled he had to pay child support for children that were, for all intents and purposes, not his.
What do you all think?
ABC News OnlineSperm donor ordered to pay child support
A Swedish man who donated his sperm to a lesbian couple must pay child support for the three children he fathered, Sweden's Supreme Court has ruled.
The man, now 39, donated his sperm to the couple in the early 1990s.
Three sons were born during the years 1992-1996, according to Swedish news agency TT, which reported the ruling.
The man told the court that he and the women had agreed that he would play no role in the boys' child-rearing and that the two women would be their parents.
Nonetheless, the man signed a document confirming that he was the biological father of the children.
Shortly after he signed the document, the two women separated and the biological mother demanded that the man pay child support.
The man took the case to court, but lost in the district and appeals courts.
The Supreme Court upheld those rulings on Wednesday, saying that as the biological father he is required to pay for the children's upbringing.
- AFP
It seems to me that the non-biologic mother should be the one paying child support. I am for equal rights for everyone, but then you have to face equal consequences too. The woman was also a mother and legal guardian to these children, not the donor. As the gay rights movement gains ground and adoption and marriages become allowed I feel that there should also be accompanying laws that hold them to the same consequences as heterosexual couples after divorces and shared parental responsibility.
All that aside, the man who made the donation in order to help the women out, as a friend no doubt, should not be responsible for these children in any way. That was their original understanding. If he is paying child support he better demand joint custody or vistation rights as well. At a minimum he should sue the other woman for his money since she is technically the second parent from the relationship. I would go out of my way to make her out to be a deadbeat mother and and an abandoner. I would drag her name through the mud publically.
If he gets no compensation from her then I would fight for father's righst to the children. Make sure that the mother looks horrible and create a mockery of the same court that ruled he had to pay child support for children that were, for all intents and purposes, not his.
What do you all think?