This is what Feminism has done to Child Support Laws

[Al Swearegen]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/25/21150280-kansas-judge-hears-arguments-in-case-of-sperm-donor-sued-for-child-support?lite

[ZEGH8578]

To be fair, it was an insemination done on private accords, not a donor to a sperm bank.
Still, unfortunate, and very unfair of the mother to be suing him for money, just cus she has financial issues.

I'm glad suing someone, just cus one might need some money, is a non-possiblity over here -.-
Otherwise I'd sue everyone, hell, I'm broke, I need money.

[Adam]

That's not feminism that's done that

[Al Swearegen]

It is

[Semicolon]

To be fair, it was an insemination done on private accords, not a donor to a sperm bank.
Still, unfortunate, and very unfair of the mother to be suing him for money, just cus she has financial issues.

I'm glad suing someone, just cus one might need some money, is a non-possiblity over here -.-
Otherwise I'd sue everyone, hell, I'm broke, I need money.

The mother isn't suing him. The state of Kansas is.

It is

I agree with Adam. You could find many examples of child support laws in the US biased due to feminism, but this is something else. Note that the mother isn't suing the sperm donor; the state is. When a single mother receives public assistance, the state will try to track down the father of a child to make him pay instead. Supposedly, the law is in place to encourage artificial insemination done by trained doctors. In my opinion, it's a law that protects traditional family values while giving the state the means to provide as little public assistance as possible.

If you're looking for unfair child support laws, there are policies in some parts of America that require male statutory rape victims to pay child support to their rapists.

[Calavera]

Feminism or not, the quote below is brilliant:

Seeking only a male as a father is discriminating on the basis of gender

It's a nice irony.

[TheoK]

That's just how sick political correctness is.

[Al Swearegen]

The state has become Fathers by proxy.
Child Support laws are to protect women and children. They are set up to make sure that the Mother gets enough money to support the child in her charge. They calculated this amount on the basis of working out an amount that made it enviable for the Father to leave the family.
Only it never catered for the Father nor was to be used in any way to consider rights of the Father.

What if the Father did not leave but the mother did? What if the Mother is using the child simply as an income generator? What if the amount assessed was based in information that is no longer correct and the Father can not support the payments? What if the child is not the Father's and it is discovered after he has been paying money incorrectly? What if there was an honest agreement between the parties that the Father was in sperm only and not to be liable? What if the mother had tricked the man into thinking that she was having an abortion or that she was taking contraception at the time and she wasn't? (Yes you may say too bad the Father gets no rights in this instance BUT then if you say if she falls pregnant and he wants to be a Father and she doesn't want to be a mother then he gets no rights - then it sounds like he as a Father has no choice). What if Mother keeps the kids off the Father? What if the Mother lies in the divorce about the Father's behaviour to keep the Father away and get best outcome?

In all of these things it more and more is the case that there is little in the way of rights for the Father and the Mother gets all the protection and all the support. The Father gets no say and no protection and my not even be able to have a relationship with the children he has to pay for.

All of this inequity was bought about by Feminism. It was all infused into the public consciousness that men were likely to leave their partners penniless and their children without financial support and therefore had to be made to pay. Women needed protection and so did the children and so Mothers are protected by society.

Fathers? Nope. Hell, in recent times tell me any sitcom or cartoon which shows men as stupid/irrational/immature/flakey/hopeless/helpless/thoughtless/violent and their wives as naturing/smart/independent/forgiving

No point out the ones in recent times where it is the other way around.

Fathers are undervalued and minimised by society because of Feminism and they have had 40 years to try to convince the public consciousness that this is actually fine.

I am actually surprised that this article made it into the internet. Slow day in the news. I would have expect the article to say "Thoughtless sperm donor Dad refuses to pay what he owes". Pleasantly surprised it didn't but will not be surprised by the outcome.

[ZEGH8578]

If Kansas is suing - can't the mother disagree?
And why was her poor economic state brought up in this?

[Semicolon]

If Kansas is suing - can't the mother disagree?
And why was her poor economic state brought up in this?

No, she can't. In the US, many governments will try to pay out as little public assistance as possible. In this case, the mother is getting money from the government to support herself and her child. She isn't seeking money from the sperm donor. The government of Kansas found out who the biological father is and wants the donor to reimburse the state for the money that they paid to the mother, on the basis that it's the father's duty to support his child. As far as I know, the state isn't going after the other woman in the lesbian couple, only the sperm donor.

Just so you know, Kansas is a very conservative state. The Republican party dominates, as does their emphasis on traditional family values. They're not near the stereotypical Democratic feminists that typically influence child support laws.

[Al Swearegen]

No the state will collect child support payments as set out in some schedule irrespective of whether it is fair or equitable for the Father and sue the Father and pass money on to the Mother. Could she agree? Would not make any difference.
I was once in a position with cild support where she had been credit too much. They said "Do you want to have it collected back off her or do you wish to write it off? I said, well it is a bit but I am OK with having it sent to me over the next two years in equal instalments. They said "No we would collect it in one lump sum unless she made other arrangements with us"
I said "Wait a second. I am the end recipient in this and you have no direct interest in this either way so if I am cool with receiving it in equal instalments (and I know you have the ability to collect or pass on moneys fortnightly) why should it matter to you. Furthermore in insisting on lump sum, she is not likely to be angry t you, but instead angry at me for making her pay when she is used to receiving. She will use her "power" invested through departments like you to them get at me and this is not going to benefit the children." She sid "Yes but that is what we do and besides if she wants to negotiate..." I said "I know her. She won't she will pay it in a lump sum and then get angry at me"

In short that don't give a shit.

Her economic plight was as a justification.
Of course they made this financial arrangement and maybe as a friend and on request he allowed a couple to have a baby and with explicit instructions that this was to be his sole responsibility and obligation BUT she has now fallen on hard times and the poor Mother MUST be protected from a bad choice and the Father must be held into account.

[Semicolon]

No the state will collect child support payments as set out in some schedule irrespective of whether it is fair or equitable for the Father and sue the Father and pass money on to the Mother. Could she agree? Would not make any difference.
I was once in a position with cild support where she had been credit too much. They said "Do you want to have it collected back off her or do you wish to write it off? I said, well it is a bit but I am OK with having it sent to me over the next two years in equal instalments. They said "No we would collect it in one lump sum unless she made other arrangements with us"
I said "Wait a second. I am the end recipient in this and you have no direct interest in this either way so if I am cool with receiving it in equal instalments (and I know you have the ability to collect or pass on moneys fortnightly) why should it matter to you. Furthermore in insisting on lump sum, she is not likely to be angry t you, but instead angry at me for making her pay when she is used to receiving. She will use her "power" invested through departments like you to them get at me and this is not going to benefit the children." She sid "Yes but that is what we do and besides if she wants to negotiate..." I said "I know her. She won't she will pay it in a lump sum and then get angry at me"

In short that don't give a shit.

Her economic plight was as a justification.
Of course they made this financial arrangement and maybe as a friend and on request he allowed a couple to have a baby and with explicit instructions that this was to be his sole responsibility and obligation BUT she has now fallen on hard times and the poor Mother MUST be protected from a bad choice and the Father must be held into account.

I don't understand your story. Are you saying that it's the government's responsibility to smooth things over between you and your ex-wife?

I don't see this story as favoring the biological mother. It favors the non-biological mother, as I don't see any indication that she has been approached for child support. If anything, the biological mother is irrelevant. She is receiving a certain amount of assistance from the state, and the state is looking to shift that financial responsibility to the sperm donor. Will she receive more or less money per month if she is awarded child support? There's not enough information to tell.

[Beardy McFuckface]

These laws that perpetuate this double standard in law isn't due to feminism. I used to think it was, but it's due to deep-rooted sexism that stems from christian traditional values that made such laws in the first place.

The same values were the reason why rape laws were purely aimed at males until recently.

[Al Swearegen]

The CSA has not the slightest interest in the children's interest or what works for the families and that was the point of my story and a  response to the question about what if the mother says whatever. Do I expect them to smooth things over with my ex? What a strange inquiry. I ask you honestly where did I even imply they should?

No the system benefits the Mother and disadvantages the Father. They do not say "OK partnership has gone south, we were set up to protect partners doing a flit and abandoning a woman with child so therefore the non-custodial parent is up for child support, and that would be the female ex-partner...

So easy. Well there had to be sperm from somewhere, so find that man and make him pay. Who gives a damn about the female partner, or agreements or any damn thing. Man , make him pay.

[Al Swearegen]

These laws that perpetuate this double standard in law isn't due to feminism. I used to think it was, but it's due to deep-rooted sexism that stems from christian traditional values that made such laws in the first place.

The same values were the reason why rape laws were purely aimed at males until recently.

Oh this is some "Patriarchy hurts men too" thing? Yeah I don't believe in that. I think it is a con job.