PDA

View Full Version : Kansas sperm doner gets hit for child support.



garhkal
01-23-2014, 08:14 PM
Wow. Thought this case had been taken care of several years back, but apparently not.
For those who may NOT know, a Kansas judge has ruled a man who answered an ad from a Lesbian couple to donate sperm so they could have a kid, has now been hit with child support payments cause that lesbian couple broke up and the one who had the kid 'wants help raising it financially'.

What's everyone's take on this?

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/01/23/judge-rules-kan-sperm-donor-owes-child-support/

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/justice/kansas-sperm-donation/index.html

imnohero
01-23-2014, 08:31 PM
This is actual a fairly interesting case, legally speaking, because the state's case hinges on interpretation of a law about medical care and extending that to another area of law (contracts) regarding parental rights and obligations. I'm not sure that I agree that the state can void a contract in the manner that they are arguing...that is, that support rights belong to the child, not the parent. That interpretation suggests that the child would have to sign off on the parental agreement, which they can't do, especially (as in this case) when they aren't born yet, and aren't legal able to do.

I've sort of been waiting to see the outcome of this case, I think this is the first time it's actually been in front of a judge. I'm positive this ruling will be appealed.

sandsjames
01-23-2014, 09:07 PM
This is crazy. Maybe the judge has a different agenda? Devil's advocate only, but maybe he's against homosexuality and by ruling this way knows that it will, in the future, deter others from donating for this purpose making it much more difficult for lesbian couples to have babies.

Either way, there's no way in hell the donor should have to pay a cent in any rule of law with any common sense.

imnohero
01-24-2014, 03:02 AM
Pretty sure the judge is a woman, Mary Mattivi.

I haven't been able to find the judges actual written ruling. Based on the news articles, however, her ruling hinges on the interpretation of the Kansas Parentage Act (KPA) that for a sperm donor to be relieved of parental rights and responsibilities, the donation must go through a liscenced phsysician. Though I've searched for and read some of the KPA, I haven't yet found that exactly language in the law. The judge also noted that this appears to be the first time that this particular situation has been brought before the Kansas court. Without prior case law on either side and as a summary judgement, it's up to the judge almost entirely to interpret the inexactly wording of the law.

I agree that it doesn't make sense that the guy should have to pay child support. It was clearly the intent of the contracting parties that he not have paternal rights or responsibilities. That there might be some loophole in the KPA that forces him to pay? Could be, whether it makes sense or not. Unfortunately, this is an area of law that is not "up to date" with technology and real world practices.

imnohero
01-24-2014, 03:14 AM
So, one other thing... The Uniform Parentage Act (1973) does address the use of a physician during sperm donation, in the follow context:

A married man, donoting sperm to a woman other than his wife through a physician, is legally considered not the father.

Now, that situation is not this case's situation. A similar case in Indiana (state suing to recoup public assistance payments from a sperm donor to a lesbian couple) came down on the side of the sperm donor. The judge in that case (if I'm reading the summaries right) said that the contract between the parties over road the states interest. In that case, however, the mother was on the states side because she wanted to collect child support. This Kansas case, the mother doesn't want anything to do with the donor.

The news says the guy is appealling the ruling, so I guess we'll find out in another year or so what the appeallate court thinks.

Meanwhile, back to reality, Kansas has spent more money trying to get the father to pay the $4000 than they ever would have had to pay in public assistance for the kid. If you want to talk about "screwed up"...

Bunch
01-24-2014, 04:27 AM
This is crazy. Maybe the judge has a different agenda? Devil's advocate only, but maybe he's against homosexuality and by ruling this way knows that it will, in the future, deter others from donating for this purpose making it much more difficult for lesbian couples to have babies.

Either way, there's no way in hell the donor should have to pay a cent in any rule of law with any common sense.

I think the same.

garhkal
01-24-2014, 04:44 AM
This Kansas case, the mother doesn't want anything to do with the donor.


Other than his cash.

And what gets me, is in a snippet on the news, he said he would NOT try to get any parental rights due to him CAUSE of paying child support. Sorry, but if i am going to pay for the brat, i want a say in how he is raised.

Measure Man
01-24-2014, 05:12 AM
This is actual a fairly interesting case, legally speaking, because the state's case hinges on interpretation of a law about medical care and extending that to another area of law (contracts) regarding parental rights and obligations. I'm not sure that I agree that the state can void a contract in the manner that they are arguing...that is, that support rights belong to the child, not the parent. That interpretation suggests that the child would have to sign off on the parental agreement, which they can't do, especially (as in this case) when they aren't born yet, and aren't legal able to do.

It is interesting.

Yes, child support belongs to child. Just like say, what? Veterans' benefits might...if that is true, then the contract is an illegal contract and not enforceable. Regardless of whether or not the child is in a position to sign away their rights...that doesn't give another person the right to do so.

Also, interesting how this came about. The mother applied for state assistance, being unemployed and what-not. To qualify for assistance for the child, the other parent must first be made to pay.

The problem here, is they went outside a legally documented process to do this...basically, think about a couple that just gets married in their basement with no license or legal official...then the spouse wants to collect benefits based on that marriage. Good and well that common sense might make them married...but they did not follow a legal process.

All that being said...it sure is a hard kick in the nuts for that guy.



I've sort of been waiting to see the outcome of this case, I think this is the first time it's actually been in front of a judge. I'm positive this ruling will be appealed.

We discussed this in a recent Ethics class I took...there a lot of odd way of looking at it.

Bunch
01-24-2014, 05:29 AM
Other than his cash.

And what gets me, is in a snippet on the news, he said he would NOT try to get any parental rights due to him CAUSE of paying child support. Sorry, but if i am going to pay for the brat, i want a say in how he is raised.

"Brat" really? What is he/she like 4 years old? Does he/she has any fault in this?

imnohero
01-24-2014, 05:47 AM
Other than his cash.


As I understand it, the woman is not asking for child support, the state is suing to MAKE the donor pay child support.

imnohero
01-24-2014, 05:58 AM
The problem here, is they went outside a legally documented process to do this...

I believe that is the critical argument in the case. The state is saying they didn't follow the legal process and therefore the donor can't legally waive parental rights. I'm not sure that the law specifically addresses this situation. I would love to read the judges decision, so I could understand her reasoning and application of the law. The defense, of course, argues that the law doesn't apply to this situation, but the attorney is quoted as saying they are "disappointed but not surprised" by the decision, so they must have seen this outcome as possible.

AJBIGJ
01-24-2014, 12:44 PM
This is an interesting scenario to be certain, hell of a raw deal for the guy if he gets stuck with the child support, I'm not paying Kansas tax dollars but I can sympathize a bit with those who might say something along the lines of "if the genetic father gets off scot free, why should the taxpayers have to step in?"

As a Laissez Faire advocate I personally believe people should be able to freely make these types of transactions without the "government approved" mechanisms, what muddies the waters is when the government intervention is voluntarily called upon by one party, then it naturally is going to intervene.

Ideal 20/20 hindsight, they could very well have performed such an arrangement as they had, but as a CYA included a signed legal contract between individuals that would abrogate the parental responsibilities of the donor, instead granting it to the other partner (and make her pay the damn child support instead).

That is the outcome I believe is desirable, if same sex partners wish to build a family together, they should also share the burdens of responsibilities a more traditional marriage normally would. The problem of course is I doubt the state legal system has any mechanism already in place to enforce it.

sandsjames
01-24-2014, 12:52 PM
This is an interesting scenario to be certain, hell of a raw deal for the guy if he gets stuck with the child support, I'm not paying Kansas tax dollars but I can sympathize a bit with those who might say something along the lines of "if the genetic father gets off scot free, why should the taxpayers have to step in?"

As a Laissez Faire advocate I personally believe people should be able to freely make these types of transactions without the "government approved" mechanisms, what muddies the waters is when the government intervention is voluntarily called upon by one party, then it naturally is going to intervene.

Ideal 20/20 hindsight, they could very well have performed such an arrangement as they had, but as a CYA included a signed legal contract between individuals that would abrogate the parental responsibilities of the donor, instead granting it to the other partner (and make her pay the damn child support instead).

That is the outcome I believe is desirable, if same sex partners wish to build a family together, they should also share the burdens of responsibilities a more traditional marriage normally would. The problem of course is I doubt the state legal system has any mechanism already in place to enforce it.

Agree...I'm curious as to what, if any, the law is on this. If a lesbian couple adopts and then separates/divorces, is the partner required to pay child support?

AJBIGJ
01-24-2014, 12:57 PM
Agree...I'm curious as to what, if any, the law is on this. If a lesbian couple adopts and then separates/divorces, is the partner required to pay child support?

I doubt it, right now in general states are still in the crawl stage at legally addressing same sex families. I predict we're going to see a whole slew of "unprecedented" situations brought up in the court system before the law catches up.

AJBIGJ
01-24-2014, 01:22 PM
I missed the detail before, apparently a contract similar to what I stated was indeed signed, although I have not seen it mentioned whether the non-birthing partner accepted any parenting responsibilities.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-24-2014, 01:25 PM
This is crazy. Maybe the judge has a different agenda? Devil's advocate only, but maybe he's against homosexuality and by ruling this way knows that it will, in the future, deter others from donating for this purpose making it much more difficult for lesbian couples to have babies.

Either way, there's no way in hell the donor should have to pay a cent in any rule of law with any common sense.

I think its another example of the government wanting a hand in everything that is done in America. Electricians need certifications. Plummers same. Sperm donors, you cant do it the old fashion way because if its not done through the "licensed" phisician, then it wasnt done "right". The dude signed away his legal rights as a father. Was it the mothers that came after him to support the kid after they couldnt? Its complete overreach of the judicial and government system.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-24-2014, 01:30 PM
It is interesting.

Yes, child support belongs to child. Just like say, what? Veterans' benefits might...if that is true, then the contract is an illegal contract and not enforceable. Regardless of whether or not the child is in a position to sign away their rights...that doesn't give another person the right to do so.

Also, interesting how this came about. The mother applied for state assistance, being unemployed and what-not. To qualify for assistance for the child, the other parent must first be made to pay.

The problem here, is they went outside a legally documented process to do this...basically, think about a couple that just gets married in their basement with no license or legal official...then the spouse wants to collect benefits based on that marriage. Good and well that common sense might make them married...but they did not follow a legal process.

All that being said...it sure is a hard kick in the nuts for that guy.




We discussed this in a recent Ethics class I took...there a lot of odd way of looking at it.

I fully agree. I make sure that every cent my ex pays me in child support goes towards the well being of the kids. Some people dont think that way, she always says "I'll get you your money", and I correct her every time.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-24-2014, 01:39 PM
Agree...I'm curious as to what, if any, the law is on this. If a lesbian couple adopts and then separates/divorces, is the partner required to pay child support?

The law in GA is that the biological parent can only give up or lose parental rights IF they sign or dont pay child support AND the custodial parent has a spouse willing to adopt the child. There must always be two parents that are "responsible" for that child. Unless the parent dies. Or becomes completely non-existant in the state. but there is no same-sex marriage in GA, so that one will be tricky

Measure Man
01-24-2014, 03:19 PM
Agree...I'm curious as to what, if any, the law is on this. If a lesbian couple adopts and then separates/divorces, is the partner required to pay child support?

I would think so, yes. Especially if both parents adopted the child. Where it gets tricky is when one parent is the biological parent and the other is a "step"...or the other biological parent is known.

If the non-biological parent legally adopts the child...then, I'm pretty sure they are legally just as legitimate (and obligated) as a biological parent. The ability to do that varies by state.

Slightly dated, 2010: http://divorce.clementlaw.com/child-support/same-sex-couple-ordered-to-pay-child-support/

Measure Man
01-24-2014, 03:25 PM
I think its another example of the government wanting a hand in everything that is done in America. Electricians need certifications. Plummers same. Sperm donors, you cant do it the old fashion way because if its not done through the "licensed" phisician, then it wasnt done "right". The dude signed away his legal rights as a father. Was it the mothers that came after him to support the kid after they couldnt? Its complete overreach of the judicial and government system.

I see this more as the government doing it's job in helping to resolve private disputes.

AJBIGJ
01-24-2014, 03:30 PM
I would think so, yes. Especially if both parents adopted the child. Where it gets tricky is when one parent is the biological parent and the other is a "step"...or the other biological parent is known.

If the non-biological parent legally adopts the child...then, I'm pretty sure they are legally just as legitimate (and obligated) as a biological parent. The ability to do that varies by state.

Slightly dated, 2010: http://divorce.clementlaw.com/child-support/same-sex-couple-ordered-to-pay-child-support/

Well, at least NY is on top of the issue, not sure if other state court systems would use it as a precedent though... It should, but I'm not 100% sure if everyone would.

USN - Retired
01-24-2014, 03:31 PM
Wow. Thought this case had been taken care of several years back, but apparently not.
For those who may NOT know, a Kansas judge has ruled a man who answered an ad from a Lesbian couple to donate sperm so they could have a kid, has now been hit with child support payments cause that lesbian couple broke up and the one who had the kid 'wants help raising it financially'.
What's everyone's take on this?


No good deed goes unpunished.



Based on the news articles, however, her ruling hinges on the interpretation of the Kansas Parentage Act (KPA) that for a sperm donor to be relieved of parental rights and responsibilities,

I agree that it doesn't make sense that the guy should have to pay child support. It was clearly the intent of the contracting parties that he not have paternal rights or responsibilities.

Parental responsibilities? If it is HER body and HER choice, then why should it be HIS financial responsibility? I'm just askin'. (Actually, I'm just trolling...) :bounce

sandsjames
01-24-2014, 03:35 PM
No good deed goes unpunished.



Parental responsibilities? If it is HER body and HER choice, then why should it be HIS financial responsibility? I'm just askin'. (Actually, I'm just trolling...) :bounce

I don't think you'll get much disagreement on this one.

AJBIGJ
01-24-2014, 03:36 PM
Parental responsibilities? If it is HER body and HER choice, then why should it be HIS financial responsibility? I'm just askin'. (Actually, I'm just trolling...) :bounce

Trolling maybe, but it actually brings up a good point, I'm genuinely curious what the abortion laws in thate state specify regarding the decision-making capabilities and responsibilities of the father and mother when the mother decides to get an abortion. I would call it at least "inconsistent" if he is held as having responsibility as the biological father in this instance, if fathers are not a required step in the process of getting an abortion in that state.

Measure Man
01-24-2014, 03:57 PM
Well, at least NY is on top of the issue, not sure if other state court systems would use it as a precedent though... It should, but I'm not 100% sure if everyone would.

I have no doubt that not all states have flushed this out yet. Many states don't even recognize same-sex couples, so I would gather they may not allow adopting by such.

The question provided though was "if they adopted..." So, assuming they adopted legally...I would bet that all the rights/responsibilities of being a parent go along with that. We can get into a couple that legally adopts in one state and then moves to another that doesn't...that's where things get complicated.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-24-2014, 04:44 PM
I see this more as the government doing it's job in helping to resolve private disputes.

What was the private dispute? He isnt the "father" and never intended to be. But since the 3 people did it "the ol' fashion way", he cant sign away his rights?

USN - Retired
01-24-2014, 05:07 PM
Don't donate sperm!

http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x396/WormWoodRocks/5010374-funny-cartoon-sperm.jpg

garhkal
01-24-2014, 09:55 PM
It is interesting.

Yes, child support belongs to child. Just like say, what? Veterans' benefits might...if that is true, then the contract is an illegal contract and not enforceable. Regardless of whether or not the child is in a position to sign away their rights...that doesn't give another person the right to do so.

Also, interesting how this came about. The mother applied for state assistance, being unemployed and what-not. To qualify for assistance for the child, the other parent must first be made to pay.

The problem here, is they went outside a legally documented process to do this...basically, think about a couple that just gets married in their basement with no license or legal official...then the spouse wants to collect benefits based on that marriage. Good and well that common sense might make them married...but they did not follow a legal process.
.

True he did it out of the legal system (helping a lesbian couple), but why should he get punished cause that couple broke up? Why not get child support from the former spouse that left her in the lurch, rather than the sperm doner.


I fully agree. I make sure that every cent my ex pays me in child support goes towards the well being of the kids. Some people dont think that way, she always says "I'll get you your money", and I correct her every time.

I remember hearing about a court case a while back (iirc 09-10) where a woman was taking her ex to court for not paying up, when he was, just not by handing her cash. He Bought the food/clothes for his son (iirc) and paid his 40% of the bills by direct deposit. But she was suing him for not just giving HER the cash, rather than the kid. Can't remember what happened with it.


Parental responsibilities? If it is HER body and HER choice, then why should it be HIS financial responsibility? I'm just askin'. (Actually, I'm just trolling...)

It is kind of a double standard. Guys HAVE to (well in the military not sure in the civilian world) get his wife's permission to get snipped. Gals don't have to get her hubby's (or boyfriend etc) permission to abort a baby.

AJBIGJ
01-24-2014, 10:27 PM
I have no doubt that not all states have flushed this out yet. Many states don't even recognize same-sex couples, so I would gather they may not allow adopting by such.

The question provided though was "if they adopted..." So, assuming they adopted legally...I would bet that all the rights/responsibilities of being a parent go along with that. We can get into a couple that legally adopts in one state and then moves to another that doesn't...that's where things get complicated.

Which brings another interesting point because is it really correct to label the non-biological parent as having legally "adopted" the child of their spouse that was conceived from a sperm donor or is it technically considered something else entirely? This onion definitely has layers to it.

Measure Man
01-24-2014, 10:44 PM
What was the private dispute? He isnt the "father" and never intended to be.

Biologically he is.


But since the 3 people did it "the ol' fashion way", he cant sign away his rights?

I'm sure he can...but he apparently did not follow the legal process to do so. There are legal processes for a reason. Or do you think you should be able to just jot down on a napkin that you don't want nothing to do with the child and that should be enough...and the govt. should stay out of it.?

Look at it like this...let's say two poor people have a child, they live apart. Father makes minimum wage, mom is unemployed. She goes to collect state aid for the child. State says...well, we need to shake down dear ol' Dad for some cash, too. She says...oh, we typed out this memo at the library that says he relinquishes his rights as Baby-daddy.

Are you okay with taxpayers supporting that child in lieu of the bio-dad?

I know...in your utopia, there would be no state aide for the child...but just go with this for now.

Measure Man
01-24-2014, 10:52 PM
Which brings another interesting point because is it really correct to label the non-biological parent as having legally "adopted" the child of their spouse that was conceived from a sperm donor or is it technically considered something else entirely? This onion definitely has layers to it.

Well, there are ways to legally adopt a child. Just being married to Mom isn't an adoption...that is a step-parent situation.

But...I know people whose spouse went through the whole adoption thing....they had to get the bio-dad to relinquish all rights/responsibilities...had the go through the courts and get it done, it was a long and tedious process. More to it than just mutually agreeing with a dude off craigslist

AJBIGJ
01-25-2014, 01:08 AM
Well, there are ways to legally adopt a child. Just being married to Mom isn't an adoption...that is a step-parent situation.

But...I know people whose spouse went through the whole adoption thing....they had to get the bio-dad to relinquish all rights/responsibilities...had the go through the courts and get it done, it was a long and tedious process. More to it than just mutually agreeing with a dude off craigslist

It was my impression from another article that some form of legal contract had occurred in this instance as well, as to what specifically the contract entailed it did not specify, but apparently there was some form of statement of relinquishment of rights and responsibilities, and that the problems herein lie more specifically with the applicable (and somewhat conflicting) state laws than to what extent it was prepared for by the contract. I will see if I can relocate that source but I have a feeling it is buried under layers of twitter feed...

Measure Man
01-25-2014, 01:29 AM
It was my impression from another article that some form of legal contract had occurred in this instance as well, as to what specifically the contract entailed it did not specify, but apparently there was some form of statement of relinquishment of rights and responsibilities, and that the problems herein lie more specifically with the applicable (and somewhat conflicting) state laws than to what extent it was prepared for by the contract. I will see if I can relocate that source but I have a feeling it is buried under layers of twitter feed...

I do believe they had a contract...but, the gist of the case was that it was void or not legally enforceable since they did not use legal procedures for the insemination. Basic contract law...you can not legally contract to perform an illegal act.

AJBIGJ
01-25-2014, 01:36 AM
I do believe they had a contract...but, the gist of the case was that it was void or not legally enforceable since they did not use legal procedures for the insemination. Basic contract law...you can not legally contract to perform an illegal act.

Even more nuanced from my own impression of the article I read earlier today, specifically the lack of a Physician being involved, on top of a contradictory other law that people apparently don't require a physician for such a contract to occur? Man, I wish I could find this article to link, it really does appear to show how judges of case law, at the very least, very much earn the big bucks sometimes!

AJBIGJ
01-25-2014, 01:45 AM
It would appear to be a bit hopeless towards finding that article again with my slow work connection while here on duty, if anyone has anything that can support or clarify towards what we have been discussing it would be greatly appreciated!

imnohero
01-25-2014, 02:10 AM
Here is the judges written ruling: http://cjonline.com/sites/default/files/marottaRuling.pdf

Bottom line: They didn't comply with the law, he is the legal father.

AJBIGJ
01-25-2014, 01:54 PM
Here is the judges written ruling: http://cjonline.com/sites/default/files/marottaRuling.pdf

Bottom line: They didn't comply with the law, he is the legal father.

Thanks for the link,

FUBAR that the written agreement between adults was ignored, while the Physician legislation, which I find in itself questionable, was stated as gospel. I imagine at the very least an unintended consequence of this will be a greater hesitance on the part of well-meaning male individuals who would otherwise consider donating. I don't have the costs directly in front of me but I can't imagine licensed physicians perform this procedure entirely for free (even if the costs are absorbed somehow into the medical insurance). I hope at the very least this drives states who currently recognize same-sex legislation to close any similar loopholes in their own laws to avoid similar cases in the future and place some accountability on the non-biological parents, or this may be the catalyst for a very regressive step for the LGBT movement.

garhkal
01-25-2014, 03:06 PM
Agreed. Heck when this (and iirc another case like it) started making the rounds i knew several people who said they donated sperm and such would reign that in.

USN - Retired
01-25-2014, 07:22 PM
I do believe they had a contract...but, the gist of the case was that it was void or not legally enforceable since they did not use legal procedures for the insemination. Basic contract law...you can not legally contract to perform an illegal act.

So the government has now established legal procedures for human insemination. Interesting. Scary.

imnohero
01-25-2014, 09:13 PM
So the government has now established legal procedures for human insemination. Interesting. Scary.

Not now, 1973.

USN - Retired
01-25-2014, 09:57 PM
Not now, 1973.

It is still scary.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-27-2014, 07:36 PM
Biologically he is.

I'm sure he can...but he apparently did not follow the legal process to do so. There are legal processes for a reason. Or do you think you should be able to just jot down on a napkin that you don't want nothing to do with the child and that should be enough...and the govt. should stay out of it.?

Look at it like this...let's say two poor people have a child, they live apart. Father makes minimum wage, mom is unemployed. She goes to collect state aid for the child. State says...well, we need to shake down dear ol' Dad for some cash, too. She says...oh, we typed out this memo at the library that says he relinquishes his rights as Baby-daddy.

Are you okay with taxpayers supporting that child in lieu of the bio-dad?

I know...in your utopia, there would be no state aide for the child...but just go with this for now.
Its only because of the financial aide that they had the baby in the first place. No one is ever counting the costs to have a kid anymore, they just know that they can have the baby subsidised by the tax payers, and they dont have to dip into their food budget to cover said baby. You think of the after effects, not before hand. Just like saying we need to teach kids about condoms and "safe sex" because abstinance doesnt work. Sadly, abstinance works 100% of the time and "safe sex" not so much. But it is a false security net to say to a kid that "if you use 'x', you wont get pregnant". Then comes the question of what to do with the unwanted baby, kill it or have a kid raise a kid? People only talk about the abortion issue, not the part about how "safe sex" is a false nomenclature that gives false promises.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-27-2014, 07:41 PM
So the government has now established legal procedures for human insemination. Interesting. Scary.

What happened to "stay out of my bedroom"?

imnohero
01-28-2014, 01:01 AM
Its only because of the financial aide that they had the baby in the first place.

uh, where do you come up with this? From what I've read, they were a stable 2 income household when they decided to have a baby. Don't know why, but they split up and mom lost her job. Sounds like a something that could happen to anyone. Are you suggesting that people have the 300-500K it takes to raise a kid saved up before getting pregnant?

USN - Retired
01-28-2014, 10:04 AM
uh, where do you come up with this? From what I've read, they were a stable 2 income household when they decided to have a baby. Don't know why, but they split up and mom lost her job. Sounds like a something that could happen to anyone. Are you suggesting that people have the 300-500K it takes to raise a kid saved up before getting pregnant?

I have an idea...

If a man and woman can not financially support their children, then the government should order the parents of the man and the woman to financially support their children and their grandchildren. If the parents will not or can not pay the financial support for their children and grandchildren, then the government should throw the parents in jail. In other words, if a man and woman can not support their children, then biological grandparents of those children must provide support for their grandchildren or go to jail. Our government doesn't hesitate to put the deadbeat dads in jail, so why aren't the deadbeat grandparents in jail also.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-30-2014, 07:49 PM
uh, where do you come up with this? From what I've read, they were a stable 2 income household when they decided to have a baby. Don't know why, but they split up and mom lost her job. Sounds like a something that could happen to anyone. Are you suggesting that people have the 300-500K it takes to raise a kid saved up before getting pregnant?

I was going off his example, not this story. Sorry for the confusion.