[SLW]

This came through on my facebook feed earlier tonight. I had to read it three times to get a complete grasp of the players and problems. It's on the NBC website but I pulled up the local paper because it gave more details.

Dude, you gotta pay if your going to play. And he had a wife while he helped out these women. This is three truckloads of crazy.

http://cjonline.com/news/2012-12-29/...tle-kansas-dcf

[Noms]

Oh Gawd,,,, the comments at the bottom are insane,,, read the one about PETKU, bbwaaahahahah

[kb]

There is so much wrong about that whole article...starting with the fact that they advertised on Craig's list for a sperm donor......really I just can't wrap my brain around that considering all the crazies on Craig's list.

[Noms]

There is so much wrong about that whole article...starting with the fact that they advertised on Craig's list for a sperm donor......really I just can't wrap my brain around that considering all the crazies on Craig's list.

What about the 8 kids?

[Coanteen]

That law also prevents the state from collecting child support from same-sex partners, despite the fact that Bauer volunteered to assume financial responsibility for her daughter.

To collect child support from her would mean recognizing Bauer as a parent — opening the doors, she said, to increased legal rights for gays and lesbian parents.

*headdesk*

Well, isn't that awesome. The state doesn't allow both mothers to adopt the kid or the second mother to adopt her partner's bio-kid (which would make both parents despite their split), which leaves the donor guy on the hook.

That said, it's just plain crayzee to make a Craigslist contract about a child. For crying out loud, an attorney would presumably have told him that only the bio-mom would be legally regarded as the kid's parent, and that if something went wrong he'd be stuck as the second parent!

Also 8 kids OMG O__o

[AffirmedHope]

If they don't win, have the state make the father pay child support. Then have the mother who said she would take financial responsibility, pay the man back every month. Get a lawyer to draft up a contract.

[SLW]

Did you catch the part where the guy had a WIFE when he got the wife of the other couple pregnant?? I'm trying to imagine how weird that woman is to say "why sure sweetie cakes, go help those ladies out."

Just so much wrong here.

[Alagirl]

Did you catch the part where the guy had a WIFE when he got the wife of the other couple pregnant?? I'm trying to imagine how weird that woman is to say "why sure sweetie cakes, go help those ladies out."

Just so much wrong here.

LOL!!! didn't you read the thing about the turkey baster?!

The Dad-mom wanted to support the child but is by law forbidden to do so...
Say huh?

(but yeah, finding the other half of the baby puzzle via CL, that's classy right there! )

[Coanteen]

The Dad-mom wanted to support the child but is by law forbidden to do so...
Say huh?

No, she can no longer provide for the child, at least not health care:

Without the donor’s name, the department told the women, it wouldn’t provide health benefits to their now 3-year-old girl — something Bauer no longer can provide because a diagnosis has left her incapable of working and in and out of rehabilitation since March.

I assume the quote at the end, with her "agreeing to assume financial responsibility", refers either to that Craigslist contract or to reality as it were if she were a man and was allowed to adopt her partner's kid: she agrees to assume responsibility, yes, but while she's not working the state provides the kid with health care just as it would provide for the kid of any other couple that hit the financial skids.

Just as it no doubt provides for both of these womens' adopted children (each adopted by only one woman as a single parent, and adopted so the state has no "father" to go after - his ties would've been terminated by the state already).

[Alagirl]

No, she can no longer provide for the child, at least not health care:



I assume the quote at the end, with her "agreeing to assume financial responsibility", refers either to that Craigslist contract or to reality as it were if she were a man and was allowed to adopt her partner's kid: she agrees to assume responsibility, yes, but while she's not working the state provides the kid with health care just as it would provide for the kid of any other couple that hit the financial skids.

Just as it no doubt provides for both of these womens' adopted children (each adopted by only one woman as a single parent, and adopted so the state has no "father" to go after - his ties would've been terminated by the state already).

well, I think you have it wrong.
the state is going after the captain of the swimmers....while the other parent is willing to pony up but is not allowed.
The child has only one legal parent, since the state won't allow it that she has two moms.

What a mess.

However, the ramifications are probably more far reaching than just child support.
A child has more rights than just that, and do correct me if I am wrong: like inheritance and stuff.

[Chall]

I recall reading of cases where wives cheated on their husbands, had children by their lovers and the state obligated the husband to pay child support, the state knowing he wasn't the biological father. If he treated the child as his, even not knowing it was his, and then found out it wasn't his , he still had to pay child support.
Just as crazy if you ask me.

[Chall]

Did you catch the part where the guy had a WIFE when he got the wife of the other couple pregnant?? I'm trying to imagine how weird that woman is to say "why sure sweetie cakes, go help those ladies out."

Just so much wrong here.

Not unreasonable. The wife didn't need to worry about the husband cheating with the lesbian couple. And no sex involved, just a donation? Not different from being a sperm donor at a hospital. That point I don't get, why would he be financially free if he had used a doctor, but not when he donates directly?

[jetjocky]

the captain of the swimmers

Too funny!

[Alagirl]

Not unreasonable. The wife didn't need to worry about the husband cheating with the lesbian couple. And no sex involved, just a donation? Not different from being a sperm donor at a hospital. That point I don't get, why would he be financially free if he had used a doctor, but not when he donates directly?

well, the part with the no sex is up for interpretation, since the article hinted that the procedure was not done by a licensed physician....

[SLW]

Not unreasonable. The wife didn't need to worry about the husband cheating with the lesbian couple. And no sex involved, just a donation? Not different from being a sperm donor at a hospital. That point I don't get, why would he be financially free if he had used a doctor, but not when he donates directly?

Because evidently Kansas law says he is responsible for supporting the child if he donated sperm outside of the approved donation method.

Honestly, anytime Craigslist is involved in your reproductive health you know it's gonna be bat sh*% crazy.

[Melelio]

Didn't look at it, but wanted to say your subject line made me smile

[Coanteen]

well, I think you have it wrong.
the state is going after the captain of the swimmers....while the other parent is willing to pony up but is not allowed.

How am I wrong? The article is very clear that the non-legal guardian mom (Bauer) can NOT provide the kid with health benefits. She has some kind of illness and has been out of work since March. The legal-guardian mom was a SAHM and has no income. Again:

provide health benefits to their now 3-year-old girl — something Bauer no longer can provide because a diagnosis has left her incapable of working and in and out of rehabilitation since March.

Even though they broke up in 2010, Bauer kept providing for the child as long as she worked, and the state had no issues with it (as it had no issues with her providing for all 8 kids all the time the couple was together). She was the breadwinner and the state was ok with it.

When she became unable to work in March, she became unable to provide for everything. Only at that time, when she no longer would provide health benefits and the state needed to provide them, did the state become involved. Had they been a straight divorced couple, the state would go ok, a SAHM with oodles of kids and a breadwinner out of work, health care is covered for kid.
But in their situation, state went, ok, single mother with deadbeat (presumably working) father, go after dad for health care. Bauer is left entirely out of the equation, yes, but there wouldn't be an equation if she still was working and continuing to provide for the kids. The state wouldn't care, as it didn't care before.

[SLW]

Didn't look at it, but wanted to say your subject line made me smile

Aww c'mon, you must read the link!! It has sex, Craigslist, the state govt, a straight couple & a gay couple!! It is missing religion and guns, bummer.

[Alagirl]

Aww c'mon, you must read the link!! It has sex, Craigslist, the state govt, a straight couple & a gay couple!! It is missing religion and guns, bummer.

Puppies.
and kittens
it lacks those...(I think religion is covered, in a round about way though...)

[Alagirl]

How am I wrong? The article is very clear that the non-legal guardian mom (Bauer) can NOT provide the kid with health benefits. She has some kind of illness and has been out of work since March. The legal-guardian mom was a SAHM and has no income. Again:


Even though they broke up in 2010, Bauer kept providing for the child as long as she worked, and the state had no issues with it (as it had no issues with her providing for all 8 kids all the time the couple was together). She was the breadwinner and the state was ok with it.

When she became unable to work in March, she became unable to provide for everything. Only at that time, when she no longer would provide health benefits and the state needed to provide them, did the state become involved. Had they been a straight divorced couple, the state would go ok, a SAHM with oodles of kids and a breadwinner out of work, health care is covered for kid.
But in their situation, state went, ok, single mother with deadbeat (presumably working) father, go after dad for health care. Bauer is left entirely out of the equation, yes, but there wouldn't be an equation if she still was working and continuing to provide for the kids. The state wouldn't care, as it didn't care before.

Did I get the moms mixed up?
Oh darn....
It still seems like the state wants to eat the cake and have it, too....