Q. When does a biological father have no parental rights?
A. When he donates sperm to artificially inseminate a female attorney without a written agreement.
It may not be funny, but it is true.
In an apparently “land mark case†the Kansas Supreme Court has again proven that law is totally divorced from reality. See this weeks: Kansas Supreme Court Case No. 96,102 In re K.M.H.
From the ruling:
This appeal from a consolidated child in need of care (CINC) case and a paternity action arises out of an artificial insemination leading to the birth of twins K.M.H. and K.C.H. We are called upon to decide the existence and extent of the parental rights of the known sperm donor, who alleges he had an agreement with the children’s mother to act as the twins’ father.
The twins’ mother filed a CINC petition to establish that the donor had no parental rights under Kansas law. The donor sued for determination of his paternity. The district court sustained the mother’s motion to dismiss, ruling that K.S.A. 38-1114(f) was controlling and constitutional.
That statute provides: “The donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor’s wife is treated in law as if he were not the birth father of a child thereby conceived, unless agreed to in writing by the donor and the woman.” K.S.A. 38-1114(f).
One must conclude that a man need not have sexual intercourse with or employ a female attorney to get screwed. Regardless of the evidence of paternity, the state has the right to use perverted logic to terminate paternal rights.
The concept that a father’s paternal rights are a mother’s choice under any circumstance is preposterous. The application of statute law requiring a written agreement in cases of artificial insemination to establish paternity is the ultimate example of how law is used to marginalize men.
