10-06-2014, 11:21 AM
^ I feel conflicted about that one, cannongal.
Sounds like the women decided to have a baby, went about it in an unstructured way, broke up, and now want the state to bear the cost of supporting the child.
On the one hand, I can see where the state --via tax payers --doesn't wanna pay to support yet another child whose parent(s) can't or won't, if there's an alternate support option. It's not really clear to me who the parents are "legally" in this case, outside of Schreiner as the mother. I wonder if there was any legal documentation that Schreiner's female partner at the time was assuming a co-parenting role and what's noted on the birth certificate?
On the other hand, plenty of heterosexual couples have babies through natural insemination without sufficient means to care for them -- and then ask for state support and get it.
Then again, states also vigorously pursue child support from biological fathers who naturally inseminated women but had no desire or intention to co-parent or to support a resultant child. Should it be any different in this case because the biological father inseminated the biological mother artificially rather than through sexual intercourse? Personally, I think it should be, based on Moratta's intent to simply donate sperm and his intent to waive parental rights and responsibilities in advance -- doesn't seem right that he should have to pay. But, if the waiver he signed with the women wasn't legally valid, I could see him losing the case.
Sounds like the women decided to have a baby, went about it in an unstructured way, broke up, and now want the state to bear the cost of supporting the child.
On the one hand, I can see where the state --via tax payers --doesn't wanna pay to support yet another child whose parent(s) can't or won't, if there's an alternate support option. It's not really clear to me who the parents are "legally" in this case, outside of Schreiner as the mother. I wonder if there was any legal documentation that Schreiner's female partner at the time was assuming a co-parenting role and what's noted on the birth certificate?
On the other hand, plenty of heterosexual couples have babies through natural insemination without sufficient means to care for them -- and then ask for state support and get it.
Then again, states also vigorously pursue child support from biological fathers who naturally inseminated women but had no desire or intention to co-parent or to support a resultant child. Should it be any different in this case because the biological father inseminated the biological mother artificially rather than through sexual intercourse? Personally, I think it should be, based on Moratta's intent to simply donate sperm and his intent to waive parental rights and responsibilities in advance -- doesn't seem right that he should have to pay. But, if the waiver he signed with the women wasn't legally valid, I could see him losing the case.