Gothic.net Community - View Single Post - Is that the wailing and gnashing of MRA teeth I hear?

Jonathan · 02-12-2013, 03:59 PM

some highlights from
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/ar...-child-support

"Specifically, the courts' justification that all children are entitled to support from both biological parents has been seriously undermined by the laws regulating artificial insemination. In that context, a man (regardless of whether he is the sperm donor or the non-donor husband of the inseminated female) only becomes the legal father of an artificially inseminated child if he affirmatively consents. I argue that it is incongruous to allow exceptions for formal sperm donors yet wholesale deny similar protections for those who, although not in the setting of a sperm bank, never consented to the use of their sperm. Accordingly, I propose a solution whereby courts adopt an approach similar (albeit narrower) to that used in artificial insemination cases to adjudicate child support claims against those men who were forced into fatherhood as a result of non-consensual insemination."

___

"The question the courts should be asking ... is not whether it is in the child's best interest to receive support from both parents, but ... whether it is the child's best interest to have the victimized parent reimburse the state for payments it made on behalf of the child."

___

"..even if the state is unable to collect child support payments from the victimized father, the child will likely continue to collect benefits from the state. ... Accordingly it is the state - and not the child - who is the one most in danger of harm should the state be unable to collect support payments from the victimized father."

02-12-2013, 03:59 PM	#12
Jonathan Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: northeast us Posts: 887	some highlights from http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/ar...-child-support "Specifically, the courts' justification that all children are entitled to support from both biological parents has been seriously undermined by the laws regulating artificial insemination. In that context, a man (regardless of whether he is the sperm donor or the non-donor husband of the inseminated female) only becomes the legal father of an artificially inseminated child if he affirmatively consents. I argue that it is incongruous to allow exceptions for formal sperm donors yet wholesale deny similar protections for those who, although not in the setting of a sperm bank, never consented to the use of their sperm. Accordingly, I propose a solution whereby courts adopt an approach similar (albeit narrower) to that used in artificial insemination cases to adjudicate child support claims against those men who were forced into fatherhood as a result of non-consensual insemination." ___ "The question the courts should be asking ... is not whether it is in the child's best interest to receive support from both parents, but ... whether it is the child's best interest to have the victimized parent reimburse the state for payments it made on behalf of the child." ___ "..even if the state is unable to collect child support payments from the victimized father, the child will likely continue to collect benefits from the state. ... Accordingly it is the state - and not the child - who is the one most in danger of harm should the state be unable to collect support payments from the victimized father."