babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Sperm donor to lesbian couple forced to pay child support [WTF]

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Sperm donor to lesbian couple forced to pay child support [WTF]
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 04 December 2007 01:02 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,,2221460,00.html

Rachel Williams
Tuesday December 4, 2007
The Guardian

Starting paragraphs:

quote:
Rachel Williams
Tuesday December 4, 2007
The Guardian

A firefighter who donated sperm to a lesbian couple said yesterday that he was being made to pay child support for their son and daughter, in a case believed to be the first of its kind in Britain.

Andy Bathie, 37, said the women, who approached him five years ago after other male friends declined to become donors, assured him he would have no personal or financial involvement in the children's upbringing. But he said the Child Support Agency contacted him last November and made him take a £400 paternity test, then demanded support payments because the couple had split up.


This is completely revolting.

The moral of the story is clear. Don't donate sperm unless you want to be a 100% father (in which case do it well!). I personally find the concept of being a part-father or whatever abohrent, but this man thought he was doing these two women a favour. He made a grave mistake. They will now "cripple him financially" preventing him from raising children of his own both biologically and socially, while they will live comfortably off a luxurious 2.5 salaries raising "his" children. A real sweet deal for those two... they get the sperm and the money, no strings attached. I wonder how comfy their life must be that two incomes is not enough...

I feel bad for the naive fool who was fooled by these two con artists. I also feel bad for two children, to be raised by such vile creatures.

And I do feel it's tragic in general, because there are a lot of good women out there who would genuinely benefit from men being willing sperm donors. The well shall likely runeth dry however. I'm not sure what the ramifications will be with respect to egg donations.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
LemonThriller
babbler
Babbler # 11085

posted 04 December 2007 01:05 PM      Profile for LemonThriller     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm sure this will be appealed and overturned. It sounds pretty ridiculous to me.
From: Halifax, N.S. | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 December 2007 01:21 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
He should see whether he can get custody. Or at least very significant visitation (or joint or shared custody).

By the way, before you start attacking the women involved in this, maybe you should be sure that they are actually the ones going after him for the money, 500_Apples. You've already got one of the most obvious facts of the story wrong - that they're going to be living on 2.5 incomes, when the story clearly states that the couple has split up.

Secondly, we don't know whether the issue is that one of them has been left destitute or jobless and applied for social services - and then had the social service agency force them to do paternity tests and get support from the guy first. Some jurisdictions DO force women to sue their exes (or the biological fathers of their children) for support as a condition of getting welfare. Considering that this article mentions the agency going after him again and again, and nothing about the women themselves going after him, this could easily be the case.

That said, though, if the women are the ones instigating this, then I would agree with your assessment.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Draco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4885

posted 04 December 2007 02:11 PM      Profile for Draco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here's a follow up that gives the other side, which is very similar to what Michelle describes above:
Lesbian mother hits back in row over donor's support payments

quote:
Their son, now aged two, suffers from a serious digestive problem. "I couldn't return to work because of my son being in hospital so much," Arnold said. "I was then informed by the CSA that if I did not give the father's details then my income support would be cut down, and I wouldn't be able to afford to live."

She also says that the father was regularly involved with the first child for two years. Even if he hadn't been, the lack of legislation providing for support from her ex-partner puts her in an impossible situation. Calling her "vile" and a "con artist" is way out of line.

On a lighter note, the article seems to have some alarming warnings about internet usage:

quote:
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority warned that "DIY" donors using methods such as unlicensed websites or home insemination were financially liable for their offspring."

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: Draco ]


From: Wild Rose Country | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 04 December 2007 02:38 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Draco, if they're decent people, they'll return the money after receiving it.

If indeed one of the partners left, then the one that left ought be responsible for child support.

quote:
By the way, before you start attacking the women involved in this, maybe you should be sure that they are actually the ones going after him for the money, 500_Apples. You've already got one of the most obvious facts of the story wrong - that they're going to be living on 2.5 incomes, when the story clearly states that the couple has split up.

Just because they've split up doesn't mean one of them has stopped working.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 04 December 2007 02:41 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Vile might be appropriate for the ex partner who is evading her responsibilities, though.

Funny how issues of child support/spousal support, divorce etc, brings out the visceral in people.

Not me though.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Draco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4885

posted 04 December 2007 02:47 PM      Profile for Draco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Draco, if they're decent people, they'll return the money after receiving it.

If indeed one of the partners left, then the one that left ought be responsible for child support.


And if the ex chooses not to be responsible? Is the partner that remains to support the children still "vile" and "revolting" for going after the money she needs to live from where she can get it? I wouldn't be so quick to righteously condemn the failings of someone suffering the effects of systemic legal discrimination.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: Draco ]


From: Wild Rose Country | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 04 December 2007 02:57 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Draco:

And if the ex chooses not to be responsible? Is the partner that remains to support the children still "vile" and "revolting" for going after the money she needs to live from where she can get it? I wouldn't be so quick to righteously condemn the failings of someone suffering the effects of systemic legal discrimination.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: Draco ]


Well then,

The legal system is discriminating against her, and she has two options,

Either she suffers the consequences,
or;
She ruins the donor's life.

She chose to look out for number 1. So much for personal responsibility.

This story is of one man of low intelligence, two women of low morals, and an inept justice system.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Draco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4885

posted 04 December 2007 03:09 PM      Profile for Draco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Well then, The legal system is discriminating against her, and she has two options, Either she suffers the consequences, or; She ruins the donor's life.

She chose to look out for number 1. So much for personal responsibility. This story is of one man of low intelligence, two women of low morals, and an inept justice system.


So, what would you do? Abandon the chronically ill two-year-old to state care? If she can't work while caring for him and wouldn't receive assistance sufficient to live on, it would seem to be the only "personally responsible" option. I would view that as a far greater wrong than seeking support from a man who had previously expressed interest in being the children's "daddy."

ETA: And how can the support in question be enough money to "ruin his life", but at the same time be something that she and her children should just take the loss of in stride?

And the justice system isn't "inept". It's blatantly and intentionally discriminatory. Reforms are apparently in the works, but they still get this sort of criticism from the Times Online:

quote:
Would this really be to the good? Gay relationships can, of course, be solid and lasting, but the reality is that most last less long than normal marriages. The Government's plans to place gay parents on the same basis in law as heterosexual parents is based on a fantasy that one relationship is as good as another for bringing up children. Wishful thinking is a bad basis for law.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: Draco ]


From: Wild Rose Country | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 December 2007 03:17 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not only did you not bother to read the article carefully for their real situation, but you seem not to have read the follow-up article someone posted either.

The man was apparently not just a "sperm donor" - he was involved in the child's life, and the agreement was not done through legal channels, nor did he give up his parental rights, nor did the ex-partner legally adopt the child.

Furthermore, there WAS only one income, not two - the biological mother lost her income, as the second article states. And the welfare agency refused to give her any benefits until she gave up the information about the child's biological father.

So now you're saying that she should give him all the money he has to pay to her. But what if the whole point of the social service agency going after the father for support is in order to take that amount off her welfare cheque? So, what if he pays her, say, $500 a month, and they dock that amount from her welfare cheque? Do you still think it's her fault that she's been put into a position by the welfare agency of either taking his money or starving? I don't know what welfare rates are like there, but if they're anything like here, there's no way parents on welfare can afford to give up even a dollar of it.

As for the ex-partner - we have no way of knowing whether she's paying support or not. It's quite possible that she's paying child support, but that it doesn't "count" for the welfare agency because she's not a biological parent. They're saying in the articles that there is no legal way for the welfare agency to consider the partner to be a parent. So perhaps they have to go after the father for support too. Perhaps the ex-partner has a very low income job and can't afford to pay support. Or perhaps the ex-partner is a jerk who is refusing to pay at all. But we have no idea what the situation is.

What we DO know is that the biological mother has been put into a horrible, desperate financial situation because she's fallen onto hard times, has been forced by a welfare agency to put forth the biological father's name so he can pay, and might possibly be having his support docked from her welfare cheque. (That's what happens here, I think.)

And you're just assuming she's a "woman of low morals," whateverthefuck that's supposed to mean.

It sounds more to me like she's a woman who's been trapped in a very punitive welfare system that refuses to help her because they refuse to recognize different family structures than the heteronormative nuclear family.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 04 December 2007 03:46 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Not only did you not bother to read the article
[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

I read the article and the babble points that followed.

But since you began your post with a personal attack, and a lie, I didn't bother to read the rest.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 December 2007 03:50 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry, it wasn't meant to be a personal attack. It was an observation, based on the fact that you got some of the most simple facts (that were spelled out explicitly in the article) wrong in your rush to demonize a destitute single mother.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Draco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4885

posted 05 December 2007 08:17 AM      Profile for Draco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
...rush to demonize a destitute single mother.

Which is a very apt description of the significant coverage this issue is getting in the British press. There is zero sympathy for the single mother or criticism of the unjust laws that left her in the lurch. Rather, both the Times and the Telegraph use it as a platform to condemn the fitness of same-sex couples to raise children. The Telegraph has this brilliant bit of bigotry:

quote:
Some big, daft hero will be out there waiting to help her, in one way or another. Perhaps that's the real reason I have misgivings about sperm donors. They unwittingly continue to facilitate the desires of the feckless and the reckless to indulge themselves with a family and a nice new baby, no matter what.

Opposition to equality for same-sex couples has always been filled with a callous disregard for the children they raise - especially by those who purport to have children first most in mind. Even so, I find story shocking still, that so many would vociferously rally to the cause of a father required to pay support and completely ignore the question of whether the children would be otherwise provided for.


From: Wild Rose Country | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 December 2007 08:22 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, don't get me wrong. I think if this guy really was a sperm donor, then he should definitely not have to pay child support. He's a victim of the system too.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 05 December 2007 08:52 AM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Well, don't get me wrong. I think if this guy really was a sperm donor, then he should definitely not have to pay child support. He's a victim of the system too.
I think not. Any and all men who father children should have some responsibility to provide some support for that child, with one exception: in the case of anonymous donors to registered sperm donation clinics. In this case, the identification of the donors should be stripped and the sperm be treated as anonymous tissue donation. In this case, the donation was not anonymous, and the needs of the child must outweigh the interests of the absent parent, even if the mothers of the child are willing to waive such support for a period of time. As one who was happily abandoned by his father, I have no sympathy for him. He should have considered his responsibility much more carefully, and should pony up willingly to a child which is after all partially his.

Ed to add. I just read the follow up story about how he just loved to 'play daddy' when the first child was young and cute, but now that he has a new partner, and made his wee 'donation' to produce a second dependent, has decided to move on and resents the fact that the little brats have now become a drain on his pocketbook. This man is contemptable.

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: Makwa ]


From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 05 December 2007 09:21 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Sperm donor to lesbian couple forced to pay child support [WTF]

WHOA! I just saw this.

Can I get my deposits back?


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Summer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12491

posted 05 December 2007 09:46 AM      Profile for Summer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think Makwa's post raised an interesting issue regarding the best interests of the child (BIOC). Certainly in Canada (can’t speak for the UK), the BIOC trumps a lot of other considerations. And certainly, given the particular situation described in the article, it’s not too much of a stretch to find that this man is the father since he seemed to have taken on that role. (i.e. you can’t have it both way, buddy). Courts have found that step-fathers have to pay child support I think, so why not the biological father who takes an active role with the children?

But, in the case where a non-anonymous donor has no involvement with the child(ren), he should be treated no differently than an anonymous donor. I don’t think a sperm donor should be compared to a dead-beat dad who has “happily abandoned” his child. The BIOC can be achieved through legislation respecting a woman’s right to choose artificial insemination and a man’s right to donate his sperm. The legislation would effectively recognize that the biological father has no rights to or responsibilities for the child. Along with this should be passed a law allowing a child to have two mothers or fathers, as the case may be.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
J. Arthur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14743

posted 05 December 2007 03:08 PM      Profile for J. Arthur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I see the point that the woman may be forced into this position by the welfare system. Still and all, it's quite safe to say that the people involved (all of them) properly belong on the Jerry Springer show.

It's hard not to be judgmental but...

As far as I'm concerned, while I think it is stupid at first glance for the courts to go after the sperm donor, I'd rather the man spreading his seed around (by any means) be saddled with paying child support than the taxpayers who already pay for enough as it is.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 05 December 2007 03:17 PM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
As far as I'm concerned, while I think it is stupid at first glance for the courts to go after the sperm donor, I'd rather the man spreading his seed around (by any means) be saddled with paying child support than the taxpayers who already pay for enough as it is.

Yeah the "taxpayers" (which of course includes people on social assistance, a fact that poor-bashers like yourself seem to ignore) have the heavy burden of elaborate social assistance programs that pretty much kick ass.

I wish I was on welfare or ODSP so that I could be evicted with arrears once or twice a year, lose a bit of weight starving to death and then get charged with fraud at the end of it. Can you believe that the taxpayers are paying for that free ride!

Of course, if that makes good TV for you and millions of bucks for talk show hosts than it's worth it.


From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
J. Arthur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14743

posted 05 December 2007 03:35 PM      Profile for J. Arthur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's not bashing the poor, it's stating a fact. If the biological father doesn't support the child, the taxpayers will have to. Better him than us.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 05 December 2007 03:40 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by J. Arthur:
It's not bashing the poor, it's stating a fact. If the biological father doesn't support the child, the taxpayers will have to. Better him than us.

You're viewing the situation from an deontological angle of ethical egoism and direct costs only.

The second one chooses not to embrace ethical egoism, or decides to concern themselves with indirect costs, or both, they will inevitably disagree with your poorly thought-out position.

***

In case this wasn't clear, when I write of indirect costs, I'm not specifically referring to money. I mean social costs.

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 05 December 2007 03:41 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Must be something going on this evening to bring out the creeps.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
J. Arthur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14743

posted 05 December 2007 09:03 PM      Profile for J. Arthur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, the whole thing is rigoddamndiculous to tell the truth. And I would have to concede that it's pretty stupid on top of all that to sue a sperm donor for child support.

Someone who eaks out a meagre existence smacking the monkey down at the local sperm bank probably isn't good for that many shekels.

What pisses me off more is the fact that people go through extraordinary means to have children only to bugger off and not support them. The children must be supported, no question -- the useless adults who refuse to get off their ass to support their own children, well, not them so much.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 December 2007 09:20 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by J. Arthur:
What pisses me off more is the fact that people go through extraordinary means to have children only to bugger off and not support them. The children must be supported, no question -- the useless adults who refuse to get off their ass to support their own children, well, not them so much.

Please do flesh this out a bit more as to what you mean?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
J. Arthur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14743

posted 05 December 2007 09:38 PM      Profile for J. Arthur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I mean just that. The children should be supported and to a good standard of living. It's not the kid's fault that the parents do not support them. There is literally nothing I would not do to make sure my kids had a warm place to sleep and food in their stomachs. I don't understand people who don't feel the same way.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 December 2007 09:42 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I would ask: what useless assholes don't get off their lazy asses and support their children, indeed in specific ones that go to extraordinary means to have children?
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 05 December 2007 10:50 PM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
I feel bad for the naive fool who was fooled by these two con artists. I also feel bad for two children, to be raised by such vile creatures.
Upon reflection, and rereading the original story, it is quite possible to have some sympathy for the putative father in this instance, but to turn this into a hatefest for the women in question, who are demonized as 'vile' and 'con artists' strikes me as more than a little demonstration of misogyny and homophobia. Especially given the information in the follow-up story, I think some careful reconsideration of this initial characterization is in order.

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: Makwa ]


From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 December 2007 08:45 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Makwa:
Upon reflection, and rereading the original story, it is quite possible to have some sympathy for the putative father in this instance, but to turn this into a hatefest for the women in question, who are demonized as 'vile' and 'con artists' strikes me as more than a little demonstration of misogyny and homophobia. Especially given the information in the follow-up story, I think some careful reconsideration of this initial characterization is in order.

Thank you makwa, you are absolutely correct!


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
KyleToronto
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14734

posted 06 December 2007 09:14 AM      Profile for KyleToronto     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
this is nothing new - if you donate outside of a bank, you could be on the hook...that's how I always understood this.

While I am generally in favour of changing this, there has to be some tight controls here or else everyone is going to argue that they were just a donor for convenience sake.


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 06 December 2007 09:41 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Makwa:
Upon reflection, and rereading the original story, it is quite possible to have some sympathy for the putative father in this instance, but to turn this into a hatefest for the women in question, who are demonized as 'vile' and 'con artists' strikes me as more than a little demonstration of misogyny and homophobia. Especially given the information in the follow-up story, I think some careful reconsideration of this initial characterization is in order.

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: Makwa ]


Holding bad parents in contempt has nothing to do with gender, though some like you might insist it does. I make no criticism of lesbians, only of these two individuals who happen to be lesbian. I'm sure the distinction is within your grasp. To say that there is no distinction is equivalent to calling me a misandrist for labelling the man a "fool".

[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Summer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12491

posted 06 December 2007 10:02 AM      Profile for Summer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If this was a hetero couple and the man had a low sperm count, we’d be in a very similar situation: left with a biological mother raising a child with a disability. Now in that situation, people on this board would be very quick to call the non-bio dad a dead-beat for not supporting the kid. But the truth is, we wouldn’t know anything about the non-bio dad, just as we do not know anything about the non-bio mother who seems to have dropped out of the picture in this case.

The issue here is legislation. Two parents are responsible for the child and the question is which ones. CSA says the biological ones, unless the child has been adopted. UK won’t allow a child to have two moms or two dads, so the non-bio mom couldn’t adopt the child. Who’s fault is that?

I don’t see how we can fault the biological mother in this case or my hypothetical. She is raising a child with a disability. It costs money to do so. She has applied to CSA for support and CSA had forced the bio-dad to make support payments. Put yourself in the shoes of the bio-mom. What could she do differently?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 December 2007 11:20 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Well then,

The legal system is discriminating against her, and she has two options,

Either she suffers the consequences,
or;
She ruins the donor's life.

She chose to look out for number 1. So much for personal responsibility.

This story is of one man of low intelligence, two women of low morals, and an inept justice system.


Actually here is where your arguements that you are not being misogynist in this statement:

quote:
Holding bad parents in contempt has nothing to do with gender, though some like you might insist it does. I make no criticism of lesbians, only of these two individuals who happen to be lesbian. I'm sure the distinction is within your grasp. To say that there is no distinction is equivalent to calling me a misandrist for labelling the man a "fool".

shows you are. Perhaps it is not within your grasp to understand how wrong you are on all accounts!


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Draco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4885

posted 06 December 2007 11:26 AM      Profile for Draco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Holding bad parents in contempt has nothing to do with gender, though some like you might insist it does. I make no criticism of lesbians, only of these two individuals who happen to be lesbian. I'm sure the distinction is within your grasp. To say that there is no distinction is equivalent to calling me a misandrist for labelling the man a "fool".

Suggesting that the mother is morally responsible for making sure that no one but her and her children suffer any ill-effects from societal discrimination against her is an endorsement of homophobia.

But as Summer asks, what else could she have done? You never responded when I asked that earlier. Had she not been a "revolting" "con artist", what would she have done? How would she have supported her children after her social assistance was cut had she not been a "vile creature" "of low morals"?


From: Wild Rose Country | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Summer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12491

posted 06 December 2007 12:22 PM      Profile for Summer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thank you for the above quote from Apples, Remind:

quote:
Well then,
The legal system is discriminating against her, and she has two options,


Either she suffers the consequences,
or;
She ruins the donor's life.



Apples, a young lad like yourself who enjoys philosophizing about ethics and the like
should be able to accurately synthesize this situation. She actually only has one choice - which is the first you you identified.

The woman’s long-term option is to try to effect change through the legislation. But this will have no bearing on her situation.

Short-term, she has no choice but to suffer the consequences of the legislation, which means she can follow CSA and take money from the bio-dad or have her child suffer as a result. But you are right when you say she’s looking out for #1. You’re just wrong about who #1 is. #1 is the child, plain and simple.

ETA: how exactly does looking out for the welfare one’s child, make them a bad parent, anyway?

[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: Summer ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 06 December 2007 01:36 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Summer:
Thank you for the above quote from Apples, Remind:


Apples, a young lad like yourself who enjoys philosophizing about ethics and the like
should be able to accurately synthesize this situation. She actually only has one choice - which is the first you you identified.

The woman’s long-term option is to try to effect change through the legislation. But this will have no bearing on her situation.

Short-term, she has no choice but to suffer the consequences of the legislation, which means she can follow CSA and take money from the bio-dad or have her child suffer as a result. But you are right when you say she’s looking out for #1. You’re just wrong about who #1 is. #1 is the child, plain and simple.

ETA: how exactly does looking out for the welfare one’s child, make them a bad parent, anyway?

[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: Summer ]


You're right.

As far as I can tell, the adjectives I used that are in contention can only fit the story very well for the partner who left.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Draco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4885

posted 06 December 2007 01:58 PM      Profile for Draco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
As far as I can tell, the adjectives I used that are in contention can only fit the story very well for the partner who left.

Your moving and poetic contrition is a fitting antidote to your initial libellous wrath.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to direct me to the sources you are using that discuss the partner who left in more detail. As was pointed out above, the stories linked so far only say she isn't liable to pay support, but not whether she is unwilling to pay, unable to pay, or is in fact paying.


From: Wild Rose Country | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 December 2007 01:59 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
As far as I can tell, the adjectives I used that are in contention can only fit the story very well for the partner who left.

No, 500_apples, even then you are incorrect in assumptions, which appears to be based upon your personal antipathy and judgements. You cannot tell enough from the story to apply such a judgement.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
J. Arthur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14743

posted 06 December 2007 03:22 PM      Profile for J. Arthur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I guess one can only argue about this for so long and preserve their dignity. especially since all the people involved, except for the kid, belong on an episode of Maury Povich!
From: Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
Draco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4885

posted 06 December 2007 03:50 PM      Profile for Draco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by J. Arthur:
...all the people involved, except for the kid, belong on an episode of Maury Povich!

Isn't that just a way of dismissing their problems as absurd and unimportant just because they aren't mainstream and commonplace? From what I've seen of support disputes and other family law issues, none of it is remotely entertaining. While daytime TV may try hard to dehumanize and sensationalize the conflicts, no one belongs there.

[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: Draco ]


From: Wild Rose Country | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
J. Arthur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14743

posted 06 December 2007 03:52 PM      Profile for J. Arthur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Draco:

Isn't that just a way of dismissing their problems as absurd and unimportant
[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: Draco ]

I could argue to the contrary but to tell you the truth I'm guilty as charged

I'm not apologetic about it either


From: Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
Boarsbreath
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9831

posted 07 December 2007 04:44 PM      Profile for Boarsbreath   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't see how the gay angle is morally relevant. Indeed I don't see how it ever is. This is just another of the myriad ways people can create difficult situations by reproducing -- stories just as sad happen every day.

If there's anything good, perhaps it's the potential for more Telegraph readers to see that the same issues arise in 'gay' situations as straight ones.


From: South Seas, ex Montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca