Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

US: Kansas sperm donor asks judge for ruling in his favour without trial

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Martyn Butler (@Martyn_Butler) 28 Jul 2013, 10:01pm

    it strikes me that when two people form a relationship – decide to bring a child into the world – then the responsibilities to that child remain forever – maintenance is just part of that.

    Now if these two women decide to split this changes nothing in their joint responsibility to that child – The court needs to go after both the women and leave the donor the hell alone.

    1. I agree but I also think this case is a warning to men to think very carefully before donating. Laws change over time as does public opinion. Your rights and responsibilities today under the law may be totally different in twenty years time.

      1. Colin (London) 29 Jul 2013, 7:47am

        I think all three have complete responsibility for the child. All can add to the childs life in different ways and all can benifit.

        1. Mihangel apYrs 29 Jul 2013, 11:46am

          he was probably excluded from any part of the child’s life, and only dobbed in when “maintenance” was required. A lot has been said in many social comment pieces, and lesbian parenting how being a sperm donor does not make a father, Here, one partner walked away despite the commitment she agreed to, leaving the “un-father” responsible.

          It says nowhere how the “father” has inter-reated with the family, but the impression is very little. He committed to help 2 other people (who probably wouldn’t have been given the opportunity of a child otherwise). It is inequitable that he is suddenly “responsible”

  2. I have to wonder if the state would be still going after the donor if it had been a straight couple in which the husband was infertile. I have to believe anti-gay animus is what’s really behind this BS.

  3. Nasty for those women to try and swindle money out of that man after their split to reduce the cost of their child on their own pocket. Disgraceful!! Child supported is needed when one of the parents can’t be trusted or relied on for support.

    Wether they like it or not, he is not that childs parent. THEY are his parents.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all