[Puffer Fish]

A judge in Oklahoma has ruled that a sperm donor should have custody of a child that was being raised by a lesbian couple.

Quick background of the case:

A woman made an agreement with a man for that man to be a sperm donor so the woman could have a baby.
The agreement did not say anything about another woman.

About 8 months later, the woman entered a lesbian marriage with another woman.
She was already 6 months pregnant at the time of the marriage.

When the child was born, both women's names were placed on the child's birth certificate.

The two women raised the boy together for more than two years before the end of their marriage. The first woman (the biological mother) then entered a relationship with and moved in with the man who was the sperm donor, and got a Victim Protective Order against the second woman.
The biological mother wanted to raise the child in a new family, and didn't want her former partner involved the child's life. The two together (man and biological mother) were now seeking legal status as the child's parents.

So basically there is the biological mother, but also two other people contending for the custody rights over the child - the sperm donor, whom the biological mother now wanted to enter into a family relationship with, and the lesbian woman had been part of the child's family and raised the child as a baby.

The judge said that one of the factors in his decision was that the other woman did not legally adopt the child.

"I can tell you that that brings a lot of anger and emotion on me," a Miss Williams tearfully told a reporter.
The lesbian former parent is now trying to appeal the case to the state's Supreme Court.
Her argument is that same-sex couples shouldn't have to adopt their own kids to be granted parental rights, since that is not required of men who are part of heterosexual couples.

Court orders mother to hand custody of son to sperm donor, The Independent, Gustaf Kilander, February 2023
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 83094.html

[Puffer Fish]

Someone in another forum pointed out something interesting, a seeming paradox.

Suppose this were a man in a relationship, he got together in a relationship with a woman who got pregnant from another man's sperm, and he signed his name on the birth certificate. If he separated, he would be on the hook for child support.

So a person is obligated to have to pay child support, but in that same exact situation they are not entitled to be able to claim custody of the child.

It's interesting. It seems like the person who is in that position is treated kind of like a second class citizen. Such a person has the obligations, if no one else wants that child, but not the rights, if those other people are fighting for that child.

[Godstud]

USA! USA! USA!


It wouldn't happen in any other place.

Suppose this were a man in a relationship, he got together in a relationship with a woman who got pregnant from another man's sperm, and he signed his name on the birth certificate. If he separated, he would be on the hook for child support.

That has already happened in the USA. Women have all the reproduction rights.

Man ordered to pay $65K in child support for kid who isn’t his
https://nypost.com/2017/07/23/man-order ... -isnt-his/

[wat0n]

Hold on. Why is the sperm donor trying to get custody?

[Rancid]

Hold on. Why is the sperm donor trying to get custody?

The story that @Puffer Fish linked, does not match the summary he posted in his opening post. This is because @Puffer Fish is trying to make some sort of bullshit point by distorting reality (his second post, which I didn't read, becuase it's made up shit on top of made up shit.). It's either that, or @Puffer Fish is just regurgitating some bullshit he saw on social media without actually reading into it because this is what he wants to be true, even though it's not. This is how misinformation happens, and there are too many uneducated people on the planet that fall for this, and spread it.

Come on @Puffer Fish get your shit together.

Let me clear this up (and you can confirm by reading the link).

- The sperm donor is in fact the "other man" that the pregnant woman has moved in with and engaged in a romantic relationship with. That is to say, the biological mom is dating the biological dad now (i.e. "the sperm donor"). @Puffer Fish basically, made up another party that doesn't exist. There is no "other man" here.

- The biological mom who has legal custody of the child, wants the sperm donor (who she is now living with and dating) to be legally listed as the father.

- The non-biological mom that helped raise the kid for the first 2 years never officially applied to be one of the legal guardians of the child, nor did she apply to adopt the child (and thus get shared custody/guardianship in the eyes of the law).

- According to OK law, this means the non-biological mom never had any sort of legal guardianship over that child. Helping to raise a kid, doesn't automatically make you a legal guardian as we all know.

- Biological mom, also has a restraining order on non-biological mom.

- Judge looks at the situation and sees that non-biological mom has no legal guardianship to the child anyway, also has a restraining order against her from biological mom, and last, the biological mom wants biological dad ("sperm donor") to be a legal guardian. Thus, judge rules in favor of "the sperm donor" (i.e. the man the biological mom is dating and living with). Biological mom, gets what she wants, so does biological dad.

-Of course, the media will use "sperm donor" to try and sensationlize the story for clicks. Then we have people like @Puffer Fish that don't understand the story, make shit up, and spread lies.

[wat0n]

The story that @Puffer Fish linked, does not match the summary he posted in his opening post. This is because @Puffer Fish is trying to make some sort of bullshit point by distorting reality (his second post, which I didn't read, becuase it's made up shit on top of made up shit.). It's either that, or @Puffer Fish is just regurgitating some bullshit he saw on social media without actually reading into it because this is what he wants to be true, even though it's not. This is how misinformation happens, and there are too many uneducated people on the planet that fall for this, and spread it.

Come on @Puffer Fish get your shit together.

Let me clear this up (and you can confirm by reading the link).

- The sperm donor is in fact the "other man" that the pregnant woman has moved in with and engaged in a romantic relationship with. That is to say, the biological mom is dating the biological dad now (i.e. "the sperm donor"). @Puffer Fish basically, made up another party that doesn't exist. There is no "other man" here.

- The biological mom who has legal custody of the child, wants the sperm donor (who she is now living with and dating) to be legally listed as the father.

- The non-biological mom that helped raise the kid for the first 2 years never officially applied to be one of the legal guardians of the child, nor did she apply to adopt the child (and thus get shared custody/guardianship in the eyes of the law).

- According to OK law, this means the non-biological mom never had any sort of legal guardianship over that child. Helping to raise a kid, doesn't automatically make you a legal guardian as we all know.

- Biological mom, also has a restraining order on non-biological mom.

- Judge looks at the situation and sees that non-biological mom has no legal guardianship to the child anyway, also has a restraining order against her from biological mom, and last, the biological mom wants biological dad ("sperm donor") to be a legal guardian. Thus, judge rules in favor of "the sperm donor" (i.e. the man the biological mom is dating and living with). Biological mom, gets what she wants, so does biological dad.

-Of course, the media will use "sperm donor" to try and sensationlize the story for clicks. Then we have people like @Puffer Fish that don't understand the story, make shit up, and spread lies.

Thanks.

Also, fuck The Independent - its website redirects me to their Spanish homepage whenever I click their links for some reason.

[Rancid]

Thanks.

Also, fuck The Independent - its website redirects me to their Spanish homepage whenever I click their links for some reason.

I'll copy and paste here:

Notice how they also frame the story from the perspective of the non-biological (who has a restraining order) woman's perspective. This makes it easier for people like @Puffer Fish to sort of distort and fuck with the story to fit some dumb shit narrative they want it to fit.

Now of course, the only thing that is sort of different is that same-sex marriage isn't the same as hetero-marriage in OK. That adds a kink to the story, but it's largely inconsequential to what happened here. If non-biological mom, was a man, the result would be the same.

My wish is that people read stories, and social media summaries on stories with a critical and analytical eye. THis is the only way to stop the kind of bullshit that people like @Puffer Fish spread.

A district judge in Oklahoma has ruled that a sperm donor should have custody of a child that was being raised by a lesbian couple.

Kris Williams told KFOR she’s still the boy’s mother despite the fact that the marriage to her partner, Rebekah Wilson, has ended.

But Judge Lynne McGuire ruled on Monday that she’s not the child’s mother, despite being listed as such on the birth certificate. She ruled that the custodial father is the sperm donor, Harlan Vaughn.

“I guess I’m still in shock,” Ms Williams told KFOR of the ruling.

According to legal filings, Ms Wilson struck an agreement with the sperm donor in September 2018. The agreement didn’t mention Ms Williams.


Ms Williams and Ms Wilson were married on 1 June the following year. Ms Wilson was six months pregnant at that time. The child was born in August 2019 with the birth certificate listing Ms Wilson and Ms Williams as the mothers.

They raised the boy together for more than two years before the end of their marriage. Ms Wilson got a Victim Protective Order against Ms Williams in November of 2021 when she moved in with Mr Vaughn. The two had started a relationship and were now seeking legal status as parents.

Legal filings state that on 18 January of last year, Mr Vaughn filed a petition for Adjudication of Paternity and Establishment of Custody and Visitation.

Judge McGuire ruled on Monday that Ms Williams was unable to prove a mother-child relationship because she didn’t give birth to the child and she didn’t adopt the boy.

The judge pointed to the state’s Uniform Parentage Act, which doesn’t consider same-sex marriages and establishes how a parent-child relationship is confirmed. It doesn’t consider artificial insemination, which is how Ms Wilson became pregnant, but it does include adoption.

The ruling states that “Williams, through her testimony and exhibits presented during the trial, admitted she and Wilson discussed adoption”.

“Furthermore, Williams admitted she knew that under Oklahoma law she needed to adopt the minor child to establish parental rights,” it adds. “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.”

“I can tell you that that brings a lot of anger and emotion on me,” a tearful Ms Williams told KFOR.

Ms Williams and her lawyer, Robyn Hopkins, are appealing the case to the state Supreme Court. They argue that there isn’t sufficient precedent for the ruling to stand in this complicated situation.

“It’s the first kind of case with these facts,” Ms Hopkins told KFOR. “There is [no] case law precedent for these facts. Case law, even though it does not exist, these facts exist. And so, we have to use what we do know and apply it to the facts that are relevant.”

“One thing I can say is Kris is on the birth certificate of this child and they were married,” the attorney said. “I mean, to me, it’s logical. It’s black and white. But again, we don’t have case law in Oklahoma to support that. They were married. Marriage is legal. Same-sex marriage is legal in the state of Oklahoma. And they had a child. So, there’s a child of the marriage.”

She argued that same-sex couples shouldn’t have to adopt their own kids to be granted parental rights as it’s not required of men who are part of heterosexual couples.

“Show me where the case law says that gay people have to adopt their own children?” the lawyer asked. “Why do gay people have to have a home study and a background check to adopt their own children and pay upwards of a couple thousand dollars and go to court to make it official?”

Legal filings state that Ms Wilson and the child has been residing with Mr Vaughn since November 2021 and that both Ms Wilson and Mr Vaughn testified that they didn’t think their donor agreement was valid and that they ended the contract in writing in February of last year.

[Godstud]

Sounds like a Jerry Springer story, anyways.

[Rancid]

Sounds like a Jerry Springer story, anyways.

It is, but it's not as wild as @Puffer Fish alleged with his false summary.

I read the article because I know that Puffer simply cannot be trusted in what he posts. Lo and behold, he tries to bullshit us again.

[XogGyux]

It is, but it's not as wild as @Puffer Fish alleged with his false summary.

I read the article because I know that Puffer simply cannot be trusted in what he posts. Lo and behold, he tries to bullshit us again.

No way.
Honestly, I don't read them anymore, just ignore them. But... how is it that he manages to find all this crap?

[Rancid]

No way.
Honestly, I don't read them anymore, just ignore them. But... how is it that he manages to find all this crap?

I usually ignore them, but I decided to "bite" so to speak.

I'm guessing he finds this crap on social media. Social media is just sooooo full of trash. Unfortunately, most people gravitate towards all of the trash content.

[Puffer Fish]

No way.
Honestly, I don't read them anymore, just ignore them. But... how is it that he manages to find all this crap?

Sorry, I guess I did not pay enough attention to the details of the story in the article when writing the summary of the story.

I have now gone back and corrected it.

It is, but it's not as wild as Puffer Fish alleged with his false summary.
I read the article because I know that Puffer simply cannot be trusted in what he posts. Lo and behold, he tries to bullshit us again.

It was only one part of the story that was incorrect.

This is because Puffer Fish is trying to make some sort of bullshit point by distorting reality (his second post, which I didn't read, becuase it's made up shit on top of made up shit.).

It seems to me the point in the second post still stands.