[Kobi]

Originally Posted by IslandScout

Thanks, Cheryl, that fills some of the gaps.

Hi, Kobi. You wrote:

"The comments suggesting an ulterior motive on the part of the biological mother and what seems to be a willingness to excuse the sperm donor feels misogynistic to me."

Now I see that the mom isn't behind the suit, it's the state agency (I still don't understand how it's "mysoginistic" of the state to file the suit, but I'll listen and stay open to that—maybe I'll change my mind when I hear more).

It appears the agency feels it has a legal wedge created by ambiguity in the law, and it's going to use it. Maybe the legislation will change to prevent it happening in the future.

Regarding the second part of what you wrote, I don't see how it's "mysoginistic" to "excuse" the donor from having to pay child support for a child he agreed to help create with $50-worth of sperm, no strings attached on either side, all parties on board with that.

(Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote?)

Assuming I didn't, all I can say is, I'll stay open and maybe when there's more information, I'll change my mind on that one.

And it doesn't matter.

Tuesday, the courts decide without our input

In referring to the almost misogynistic comments, I wasnt referring to the article. I was referring to the comments on the article questioning the motives of the biological mother. Presumptions were made or inferred about the woman.

It was very clear in the original article that the suit was brought by the state not the mother.

We also have no idea what the financial agreement or input is for the non-biological mother. The fact that the mother applied for state assistance implies neither mother had/has the financial resources to support a child at the time.

In referring to the donor, this is a little more complicated to explain. There was a legal method for him to protect himself. Ignorance of the law, attempting to circumvent the law, and failing to protect oneself does not and should not exempt one from the consequences of their actions. A private contract still needs to conform to and adhere to current and prevailing state law. Failing to do so, implies acceptance for the potential for unintended consequences. As such, to my way of thinking, the donor is not an "innocent victim" here.

The only "innocent victim" here is a 3 year old child in need of financial support.

Be interesting to see the results of this lawsuit.