View Single Post
  #150  
Old October 10th 06, 03:49 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Ken Chaddock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

Moon Shyne wrote:

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:RzLWg.10968$H7.5814@edtnps82...


But that's as far as the "consequence" of his "spreading his sperm around"
go. After that the woman has many options and CHOICES...even if she
decides (note the word "decides") not to abort the fetus, that to, is a
CHOICE, the consequence of which will most likely be the birth of a
child...


And if the child is born, how does that absolve the man from any
responsibility for or to the child?


If you, Moon Shyne (I'm making a possibly bad assumption here Moon
Shyne and if you're not a woman I apologize in advance) go to a sperm
bank and become impregnated with donor sperm, and assuming that you let
the pregnancy continue to birth, the child you give birth to is the
genetic child of the sperm donor, no ? If a child is entitled to support
from his/her biological father, what legal fiction absolves this man of
responsibility for this child ?

Isn't it still 50% genetically his child, and legally his child as well?


As above, the issue is *exactly* the same for a sperm donor, actually
it's even MORE problematic than that because arguably, the sperm donor
*wants* to pass his genetic material along to one or more children where
as the unwilling father does not. The *only* difference between these
two men is that the first, the sperm donor, is unknown while the other
is known and can be targeted


Yes, as I noted above, but ALL post conception choices are HER choices, to
hold him responsible for the consequences that follow from HER choices is
fundamentally unfair, unjust and, on top of all that, most likely
unconstitutional...


So because she has choices that pertain strictly to undergoing (or not
undergoing) a medical and surgical procedure, you think this absolves the
man from any responsibility, even though it's still his child?


As demonstrated in the sperm donor example above, the fact that this is
his biological child or not is fundamentally irrelevant since not *ALL*
biological fathers are held responsible for their biological children.
On a more fundamental legal level, access to abortion breaks the causal
link between intercourse and child birth. With the decision at
Roe-V-Wade, a living child can NO LONGER be considered a direct
consequence of pregnancy since the mother must make the choice to
gestate and give birth.
On top of all of this, the "theory" that you promote, of unrestricted
genetic liability is abhorrent and leads to miscarriages of justice like
the following:


STATE of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen HERMESMANN, Appellee,
v.
Shane SEYER, a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants.
No. 67,978.
Supreme Court of Kansas.
March 5, 1993.
Syllabus by the Court

1.
1. In an action for support of a minor child, the parents have
a common- law, as well as a statutory, duty to support their minor
child. This duty applies equally to parents of a child born out of wedlock.
2. In an action against a father for reimbursement to the
State for support furnished under the aid to families with dependent
children program, the fact that the father was under the age of 16 when
the child was conceived and born and that the mother may have been
guilty of violating K.S.A.1992 Supp. 21-3503, or some other criminal
statute, cannot serve to relieve the father of his legal
responsibilities towards his child.
3. The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal
statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and for
support of a minor child born of such activity.
4. The State's interest in requiring minor parents to support
their children is superior to the State's competing interest in
protecting juveniles from their improvident acts, even when such acts
may include criminal activity on the part of the other parent.
5. In an action by the State against a minor father for
reimbursement of funds paid for support of his child, the fault or
wrongdoing of the mother at the time of conception, even if criminal,
has no bearing on the father's duty to support such child.

The district judge, upon judicial review of the hearing officer's
order, determined that Shane was the father of Melanie Hermesmann and
owed a duty to support his child, stating:

"Okay. I'm ready to rule. It's my view in this case that the
Hearing Officer's ruling, which essentially is that a minor may be held
legally liable to provide reimbursement to the State of Kansas under
K.S.A. 39-701 et seq., is a correct ruling of law and that the issues of
consent and the criminal case and so forth are not really relevant in a
paternity proceeding, which we're talking about, civil liability to
support a child.

"Second, I'm going to hold that the State, by proceeding
under 39-701 et seq., that there is no discretion in the Court regarding
liability. The courts, I believe, are ministerial at that point and are
the vehicle for SRS to collect the support and it was error for the
Hearing Officer not to assess all of the monies paid jointly and
severally liable against both of the parents of this child.

"And so I would enter a judgment for all of the SRS
reimbursement against Colleen Hermesmann and Shane Seyer jointly and
severally for the six thousand plus."

The court found that the issue of Shane's consent was irrelevant
and ordered Shane to pay child support of $50 per month. The court also
granted SRS a joint and several judgment against Shane and Colleen in
the amount of $7,068, for assistance provided by the ADC program on
behalf of Melanie through February 1992. The judgment included medical
and other birthing expenses as well as assistance paid after Melanie's
birth. Shane appeals the judgment rendered and the order for continuing
support but does not contest the trial court's paternity finding. SRS
has not cross-appealed from any of the orders or judgment of the
district court.


Further, what's not mentioned in this summary of the court appeal is
that Colleen Hermesmann was found guilty of statutory rape and gave
birth to the the child in prison. When Shane Seyer, supported by his
parents, sought custody of the child, it was denied on the grounds that
he was a minor child and therefore could not be "responsible" for a child...
What hypocrisy, he isn't old enough to be "responsible for" a child but
his age (and consent to sexual intercourse) is irrelevant when his
*financial responsibility* for the child is considered...humm, can YOU
say bias ?

....Ken