Donation Liability

One of the oddities of contemporary law is that we have simultaneously pushed 2 paradigms:

1) If a man impregnates a woman by having sex with her, and she keeps the baby, regardless of the state of their union, regardless of agreements between them as to who will support the child, the state will gladly garnish his paycheck for the support of the child. This is particularly true if the woman or child begins to receive some kind of expensive assistance from the state. After all, someone needs to come up with the money for the assistance.

2) Sperm donation is held forth as a perfectly acceptable model for reproduction. In this model, the man has no responsibility for the support of the child.

Now and then, someone falls in a grey area between 1 and 2. A case in the news involves Kansas, a lesbian couple, and a married man who gave the couple a donation. It was done privately, with no lawyers or doctors involved. Which made it a lot cheaper - in the short run.

But then the lesbian couple broke up. And the biological mother hit hard times and applied for aid from the bountiful state of Kansas. And Kansas wanted to know who the father was so they could make him pay. And it turned out the sperm donation had not complied with the requirements of Kansas law, particularly because no doctor was involved.

The other lesbian parent turned out not to be a legal parent at all, under Kansas law, so she's not on the hook for support. (She is reportedly "co-parenting". That presumably involves shelling out some dough, not to mention time, effort, and heart. But she's not legally obligated to do so.)

If only Oprah were still on the air, this story would be perfect.

Procedure not done by a doc.
Bio-mom goes on state aid.
Donor receives a rude shock.
Kansas wants to get paid!