Judge rules sperm donor liable for child support

Just put it on top of that huge stack of other misandric crap judicial decisions there in the corner, if you can even see the top!

When MEN finally get their shit together and start exercising their combined political power in regards to MEN'S RIGHTS then this garbage will stop. Start making these political agenda keeping judicial whores pay for their misandry by kicking their sorry asses out in the next election or better still start a recall petition. JUST START DOING IT!

So how much is the retroactive bill, or does the child support just begin from this point in time. When does the child support end if the "child" is 18 now?

...ugly enough to describe these vile, useless, greedy, selfish, stupid, irresponsible, vindictive, spoiled, manipulative cows. Like their 4-legged sisters, you can bet these cows were happy to be milked (by a breastfeeding kid in this case) in public, too.

Just as soon as the courts start holding women to adult standards of behavior and responsibility, I'll start treating women as adults.

It's a pity, since I always treated women as adults by default. Feminists have shown me the wisdom of fixing that mistake.

>"One only needs to look at the gender of the judge to know what the decision was going to be..."

Give me a break! There are so many brainwashed men and other men who think that kissing women's butts will get them more "appreciation" from women that it doesn't matter a whit what the gender of any judge is.

I wonder how the court can legally determine that this guy is the father without a DNA test if there was no written agreement between the man and woman. I guess at this point, the courts can determine anything they want to determine, as long as they add at the end of the decision, "It's for the good of the child."

Nothing is going to change until we change it. Without determined corrective action, things are only going to get worse. Guaranteed. This guy should thank his lucky stars this woman waited until after the child was 18. I think that's the only thing that's stopped her from filing for back child support from the time the child was born. Seems to me though that if she can't file for child support for the time before the child's 18th birthday, it should also apply to the child support afterward. It should have been filed for before the child reached 18. Are children not adults in Oregon until they reach 21?

There I going again. Using logic. How stupid of me.

I'm in total agreement that men shouldn't donate sperm to anyone these days.

That said, if the guy had his name put on the birth certificate as the father, and sent gifts and signed them "dad" or "daddy", then he's not acting like an anonymous donor, he's acting like an absentee father.

It's ridiculous that the woman will be able to (successfully, in my opinion) sue him for back child support, but he made the case a lot easier for her lawyer by his own actions while the kid was growing up.

If I am just any sperm donor I don't send gifts to the kid, send money, show up for birthday parties with gifts for him saying "Love Dad", and I most certainly don't sign my name to his birth certificate under where it says "FATHER."

This guys is an idiot. He trusted women and got screwed. Men should know by now to not simply trust the majority of women. Women should have to earn a man's trust it should never be just given.

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

It really bothers me that whenever a man does something to be generous to a woman or child, like give the child a father's name on the birth certificate or send gifts and acknowledging that he is the biological father for the child's benefit, he is castigated because it makes him vulnerable. How many times have we men been castigated for "only being a sperm donor" when we don't care for our children the way others believe we should?

The part that bothers me is that everyone is looking at HIS behavior but not the women's. Why didn't the judge use the legal concept of estoppel (a party is prevented by her own acts from claiming a right to the detriment of the other party who was entitled to rely on such conduct and has acted accordingly) only for the man. If the woman didn't ask for child support for 18 years, why wasn't THAT used as proof that she had agreed not to seek child support?

Is not being caring to our children the answer to our problems, or forcing women to live up to their word. Most men ARE caring and always seek to do the right thing, so in my opinion, not being caring to our women and children will never be the solution to our problems. These days, we men get screwed for both what we do and what we don't do. Good or bad either way. So why blame the man? If he hadn't been such a nice guy, the judge would have found some other excuse to nail him for the child support.

I see this “sperm donor” issue as a two fold problem.

First off, (and I agree with Mr.Reality) the guy is an idiot for being an “anonymous” sperm donor, and then turning around and trying to play daddy.

You can’t have it both ways; either you are a father or just a sperm donor.
With that said, the other part of this issue is what constitutes a family?
It seems to me this is the bigger question here, so both men and women better make up their minds, and take responsibility for their actions.
Otherwise the children will suffer, affecting them into adulthood.

It all gets down to “Parents” making good decisions initially, and then taking responsibility for their actions.

I got no sympathy for these people, but feel sorry for their offspring.

Men do not have to deposit their semen at a sperm bank in order to volunteer for 18 years of child support extortion.

According to a new study, it is fairly common for a condom to come off during intercourse and to become lodged in a woman's vagina long enough to provide a fertilizing testiment of just a little bit more than your momentary luv.

So even with so-called "safe sex" practices, it is becoming more difficult for men to protect themselves from the Baby Daddy Inc. franchise.

Within the current feminist legal system, it appears to be impossible for a man to obtain adequate documentation of mutual non-coercive (sober) consent to sex, refusal of paternity, or immunity from false charges of DV/assault.

Anybody got a fool-proof recipe for legally "safe" sex that extends to actual heterosexual intercourse?

>Anybody got a fool-proof recipe for legally "safe" sex that extends to actual heterosexual intercourse?

Move to another country (not Canada, Great Britain, or Australia) where they don't have such unmitigated disrespect for men and make sure you're having sex with a native woman who has no interest in moving to the states.

And the further from the states the country is, the better. My first two choices are the Philippines and Thailand. China is third. As you may have guessed, I'm partial to Oriental women. So much sexier and so much more feminine. And if your a little discriminating, so much more interested in your happiness as much as her own. In other words, old-fashioned, the way it should be.

In fact, foreign women and marriages to them are so far and away superior to American women, Congress had to pass a law called IMBRA in 2005 to discourage men from meeting foreign women over the internet by making meeting them cumbersome, more expensive, and even dangerous. Plus it seeks to give foreign women the impression that American men are more dangerous than men from other countries. It even makes it more expensive to the foreign women to meet American men over men from other countries.

The best way to totally avoid IMBRA is to move overseas and not use introduction services to meet your women. And don't plan on bringing your woman back to the states if you marry her. Stay there and have the time of your life!

Screw the U.S.