Reply to Are they going after Obergefell v. Hodges?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Are they going after Obergefell v. Hodges?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I would this would apply to all couples who used donor eggs or sperm, not just same sex. [/quote]

What did the sperm bank contract say? I thought sperm and/or egg donors waived parental rights? How would that be any different than a parent that gives their kid up for adoption waiving their rights? [/quote]

If you read the story, the birth mother is with the sperm donor now. This seems like an old fashioned donation and not a sperm bank. [/quote]

After reading the article, it's pretty clear that this isn't a "sperm donation".[/quote]

Doesn’t matter. If she’d been married to another man and had an affair, then listed the husband on the birth certificate, had him raise the child for 2 years, he’d have rights. [/quote]

… had an affair and then married the bio dad.
This case is a little complicated. Not saying it isn’t troubling, but when I first clicked, I thought some random sperm donor took custody from a nice lesbian couple.
This isn’t that. This is messy.[/quote]

I don’t know how his sperm was inserted, but the lesbian couple wanted to have a child, found a donor on a paternity website,  were married when the baby was born, and both moms were listed on the birth certificate. This wasn’t one of the gay moms banging some dude on the side getting pregnant accidentally and deciding to divorce the other mom to move in with her baby daddy.

The judge said that the law doesn’t apply to them because they’re gay, and it would’ve applied if they were Herero. [/quote]

Yeah ok. That’s f’ed. [/quote]

Also the mom who is trying to assert her parental rights knew that she'd have to legally adopt the child in order to be the a legal parent and she chose not to.

“Williams, through her testimony and exhibits presented during the trial, admitted she and Wilson discussed adoption,” the ruling said. “Furthermore, Williams admitted she knew that under Oklahoma law she needed to adopt the minor child to establish parental rights. Williams chose not to adopt. Williams testified that she didn’t believe it was fair that she would have to seek court intervention to establish parental rights of the minor child… The reality is that the law provides a legal remedy available to Williams. She knowingly chose not to pursue it.”

However, her name is on the birth certificate. The OK supreme court is going to have to sort this out.

https://kfor.com/news/local/court-rules-in-favor-of-sperm-donor-in-oklahoma-child-custody-case/[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics