Say you want to be a sperm donor but not on the hook for anything? It's a roll of the dice, pal. Here's the Indiana case:
MUNCIE, Ind. -- An appeals court ruled Tuesday that a man whose then-wife conceived two children using the sperm of a family friend must provide financial support for the youngsters.
The Indiana Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld an earlier ruling by Delaware Circuit Court 4 Judge John Feick that the children -- born in 2004 and 2006, respectively -- each qualify as a "child of marriage."
When the husband filed for divorce in Feick's court in October 2010, he acknowledged that "two children were born to (his spouse)" during their nine-year marriage, but said they were not his "biological children" and that he should not be held responsible for their financial support.
And the sperm donor goes "Whew!" as the would-be deadbeat dad is reminded of his obligations. But in Kansas, meanwhile . . .
KANSAS CITY, Kansas (Reuters) - A Kansas man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple so they could have a child said on Wednesday he is shocked the state is now trying to make him pay child support.
William Marotta, 46, donated sperm to Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauer under a written agreement that he would not be considered the father of the child nor liable for child support. A daughter, now 3, was born to Schreiner.
Put that one in the "no good deed goes unpunished" file. Funny old world, huh?
The problem is that the legal system considers children to be a liability, not an asset.
Divorce courts should auction the kids off to the parents. If Momma thinks the kids are worth $100,000, and Dad thinks they are worth $80,000, she tosses an IOU for $100,000 into the marital assets to be divided equally between them, to be paid off before the kids reach adulthood.
As it is, it's like giving one partner in the breakup the business, and making the other partner pay the rent and utilities for the business.