Last updated: February 04. 2014 12:13AM - 546 Views

Story Tools:

Font Size:

Social Media:

It seems to me that the ultra-feminists have won a major victory in their war against men.


Yep, it’s a case I wrote about some months ago involving a lesbian couple and a sperm donor. Just in case you may have forgotten, here’s a brief summary of the situation.


The couple decided they wanted to become parents and advertised for a sperm donor on Craigs List. A guy responded and agreed to provide his sperm to the couple - and signed a contract waiving his parental rights. He then provided the couple with containers of his sperm which the “husband” used to impregnate the “wife” - using, of all things, a turkey baster.


Now that’s a real do-it-to-yourself project, right? Kinda wonder how the choice of the instrument was determined but that’s open to speculation.


Regardless, the process was successful and the wife gave birth to a baby girl. All went along fine until the couple sought state benefits for the child. That’s when the natural fertilizer hit the rotating blades. As usual in child support cases the state attempted to identify the father of the child - and pronounced the sperm donor the legal parent and therefore responsible for about $6,000 worth of past public assistance plus future child support for the girl.


As can well be imagined he denied any such charge and went to court to prove his case. Well, after some months of litigation the verdict is now in and the female judge hearing the case has ruled that he is the “presumptive father as a matter of law,” not just a sperm donor and as such is responsible for child support.


The reason? The couple didn’t use a licensed physician for the artificial insemination process - which is required by state law. Regardless of whether he actually took part in the turkey baster activity or even had knowledge of it, the judge stated “the parties failed to conform to the statutory requirements.” Got that? He is being held responsible for the women’s acts which were contrary to the provisions of the state law even though he was not a participant in those acts. Furthermore, his waiving parental rights has no bearing on the case - but is still legally binding.


OK, let’s put this together. To start with, it means this guy has no rights as far as the child is concerned but still has the financial responsibility for her up-bringing. That’s gonna cost him some $6,000 in back state assistance payments and likely an undetermined amount of past child support plus future child support - payable to the mother - for years to come. That’s quite a sucker punch - right to the wallet.


As for the couple — well, let’s just say they gotta be laughing all the way to the bank about the thousands and thousands of dollars they’re gonna be getting from this knucklehead - thanks to a sympathetic judge.


The immediate gut reaction to this story is that it’s unfair for the guy to be penalized for something someone else did - or didn’t do - while the women actually responsible get the financial benefit. Unfortunately, in a larger sense, however, this case is symbolic of the attitude of the courts in this country that the man is always responsible when it comes to child support - responsible, but often without rights even when common sense would conclude otherwise.


If memory serves me correctly there have been instances where the husband of an unfaithful wife has been declared the legal “parent” of a child sired by another man - and has been judged responsible for child support even though undisputed evidence showed he was not the biological father. I believe I read of one case in which the mother and her lover, along with the child, were living in the family home while the husband was required to continue paying the mortgage as well as child support.


Logic doesn’t always go hand in hand with legal decisions when it comes to the role and responsibilities of men and child support. Well, the ultra-feminists must be “highfiving” over this incident. Yep, it’s a prime example of their often stated view of men - namely that men are good for only two things: being a sperm donor when a woman decides to have a child, and acting as a walking ATM machine. This case sure proves their point.


I suppose the decision will be appealed, but the odds are against him. After all, he’s a man and that means he’s playing against a stacked deck. At least that’s how it seems to me.


Bill Taylor, a Greene County Daily columnist and area resident, may be contacted at solie1@juno.com.


Comments
comments powered by Disqus



Featured Businesses


Poll



Info Minute



Gas Prices

Xenia Gas Prices provided by GasBuddy.com