Here is what I have gathered from numerous news articles.
Angela and Jennifer are two lesbians in their thirties and fourties. They live in the state of Kansas and have eight children “between the two of them.”
My understanding is seven of these children are foster children or children adopted through the foster care system. I do not know if these children are the legal responsibility of one or both women. What I do know is one of the former couple’s children was conceived via a known donor the two women secured through Craigslist.
The two women seperated, but reportedly continue to co-parent these eight children together.
After their split, the biological mother of the donor baby applied for financial assistence from the state.
Question. Obviously if the state picked up the bill for this baby’s birthing expenses, would that not mean the birth mother was already on state assistence??
Anyway. After this child’s birth (she is currently three years old) the couple separated and the state continued placing children in the home! The youngest child in the home is curently a few months old and the couple has been split for eighteen months.
So who is legally reponsible for each of these eight children and why the hell is the state continuing to place children into this home if it is not financially stable?!?
If you apply for state services, the state will attempt to hold the child’s biological parent financially responsible. Child support increases the child’s custodial parent’s income and, therefore, they qualify for fewer services and financial assistance. It is the state’s belief (understandably so) that a child is entitled to financial support from both parents. Therefore, the state of Kansas is seeking child support and birth expenses from the sperm donor for the couple’s child.
In many states, mine included, a sperm donor is not necessarily alleviated of his legal rights and responsibilities unless the insemination occurs in a medical office. Any donor agreement, whether prepared by an attorney or not, is up to the discretion of the court.
There is no legal prescedence in the vast majority of states. Angela and Jennifer inseminated in their home, not in a medical office or facility. The state of Kansas is claiming the agreement between parties is null and void and, therefore, the donor can (and should) be held legally responsible for this child.
I call bullshit.
Let me reiterate something and solve this entire cluster of a mess. The state believes that a child is entitled to financial support from both parents. For all intents and purpouses, Angela Bauer is this donor child’s intended parent; not the donor, regardless of where the insemination occurred.
If you feel Jennifer and Angela were irresponsible in choosing to have a child together, in this manner, then hold them (not the donor) responsible.
Let’s get with the program, people.
Regardless of anything, if Ash and I were to severe our relationship, she would be responsible for our child. Period. She is the Mama. She is the parent. There wouldn’t even be a question where responsibility lies and there shouldn’t be in this situation either.
I wil be watching the outcome of this case very closely. Laws need to be changed. Families headed by same sex parents need to be protected. Children of same sex parents deserve the same accommodations as those of heterosexual parents.
Let’s hope the state of Kansas sets the path for these changes!
Thoughts?!?! Opinions?!?
This doesn't really make any sense to me….Once my adoption is final, I will be the sole parent of Rya, if I apply for assistance does this mean they will go after the bio father that signed off? Silliness!
You should try it and see. this could be a social experiment. Ready, go!
Wow, this is crazy. I have some friends who used a known donor for their first baby, and the insemination was done at home too. I'm not sure what their state laws are, but since they did a second parent adoption that would take care of a situation like this, right?
Yes, it would. HOWEVER, in order for a second parent adopting to occurr when a known donor is involved, the court has to terminate his rights and that is up to the court's discretion. I don't believe there is a presidence, as of yet.
There are many things in this story ild like to correct as the father of Jennifer's two youngest children (yes father not donor which is how she is trying to treat me) the couple has 3 adopted children Jennifer has 4 biological children and Angie has one child she adopted b4 they became a couple. In some ways i hope the truth comes out in this whole sorted mess as it has already begun to and hope that everyone remembers there are children who will one day read all of this. Jennifer and I are not really on speaking terms right now due to our legal battle over my rights as a father but i do believe she would agree w me that we should think of the children and watch what we say
I'm still confused, but appreciate your clearing that up for me. I hope everything is settled for your sake, as well as the children's, as quickly as possible.
If I have this correctly, Angie had a child she adopted BEFORE they got together, they adopted three children together and Jennifer has four biological children.
Thank you for clearing that up.
Holy crap I hadn't even heard of this! I feel like this is one giant step backwards for lesbians' reproductive rights- it scares off potential donors and makes the rest of us look bad.
I hope that donor doesn't end up paying. He did a good deed and doesn't need to be "punished" for it!
Exactly! From my understanding, the couple lied about knowing who he was, but ultimately gave him up.
I have to agree with you in this, both in why is the state continuing to place foster children in this home and that the donor should not be held responsible for child support. He is not the childs parent the nin-bio mom is and she should be hels responsible!
Exactly! This is going to scare off potential donors and the two moms are responsible, not the donor!
I totally agree. I want them to come after me if i were to have a child and then we not work out. But in the end i'd fight like hell to be the one to keep the child in the first place.
Apparently the two moms support the donor and don't want him to pay support. It's the state.
Ridiculous.