|
Go RV! posted:A few years ago, I agreed to be a sperm donor for a gay friend of mine, when the time comes that she wants a kid. Recently, they've been dropping hints that this might happen soon. The girlfriend would be carrying the kid, not my friend. All three of us live in Pennsylvania.  YOU NEED A LEGAL AGREEMENT AND YOU NEED A LAWYER TO DRAFT ITThis happens so many times and it so often goes wrong and nobody ever thinks to formalise an agreement between all the parties regarding their rights and responsibilities despite the fact that you are arranging to bring a new human life into the world. What bad things can happen to you? You can be hit for child support. What bad things can happen to them? You can take a look at little baby and hormones will take over and you will insist that the arrangement was that you would always have a parental role. How do you prevent all this mess? Set out in writing precisely what you are agreeing to do and make sure that it complies with state law. the milk machine this isn't even a hypothetical, people have been doing this ever since artificial insemination became a thing you could do at home and they've been getting into life-ruining litigation ever since.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:36 |
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:That could be a big deal, as haven't there been cases of single women receiving child support from sperm donors when they went through a private clinic? I think the law doesn't look at it so much as how the child was conceived, just that the child needs assistance and will get it. I don't know the reason, I think they would just rather do the whole thing at home. Like I said, the three of us haven't sat down and worked out the details yet. We've both said that we want a legal document involved, at least. I assume that means a lawyer drawing it up, and that's what I'm pushing for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I know it's A Thing (unfortunately), I was just failing to illustrate how ridiculously bad an idea it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
Go RV! posted:I don't know the reason, I think they would just rather do the whole thing at home. Yeah them wanting to do the whole thing as informally as possible is a big neon sign that says this. ps. The Enterprise is an extended metaphor for what happens to your life if you proceed. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Apr 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
Good luck getting sued for child support by the state even though you had a legal agreement with the couple once the single mother tries to get single parent benefits. Why would you even risk having to deal with a lawsuit that would cost you a ton of money to sort out? A fair number of states specifically have a thing set up so that if a physician does the sperminating then the donor is not on the hook for child support.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Go RV! posted:I don't know the reason, I think they would just rather do the whole thing at home. Don't feel like you need to negotiate this or argue for a formal agreement. Because there is no argument: You will consult your own lawyer before they receive a drop of baby juice. Period. And not a random buddy lawyer. A local family lawyer that knows adoptions and these type of agreements, on YOUR SIDE. Not "let's all go see the lawyer as friends". This is a red-line issue. It's not you being pushy, it's protecting your rear end for decades to come. YOUR lawyer draws up the document (or hammers it out with their lawyer), and they agree to it. We cannot stress how important this is. GET YOURSELF A FAMILY LAWYER BEFORE THE TURKEY BASTING. There are a million things to think about. What if they die? What if the child is disabled, and Medicaid comes looking for YOU? Can the gay parent even adopt in your state? Does the state force the bio parent into anything? Does the state even recognize insemination agreements? (it may not) Nothing they say means anything, even if they are well-meaning, honest, and good people. It could all go fine, but there are a hundred ways in which it can totally gently caress up your life for the long-term. I'm not saying not to do it, but under no circumstances should you do it without legal representation. And again, your representation, not a communal friendly attorney. woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Apr 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
What happens if after all of this the lesbian parents move with the child to a state which refuses to recognize the agreement even if their home state currently does? The best answer I can come up with is "I'm scared, hold me." 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Don't feel like you need to negotiate this or argue for a formal agreement. Because there is no argument: You will consult your own lawyer before they receive a drop of baby juice. Period. And not a random buddy lawyer. A local family lawyer that knows adoptions and these type of agreements, on YOUR SIDE. Not "let's all go see the lawyer as friends". This is a red-line issue. It's not you being pushy, it's protecting your rear end for decades to come. YOUR lawyer draws up the document (or hammers it out with their lawyer), and they agree to it. And really discuss it with the family law attorney, too, not just go in there to draft an agreement. I'm not a family law attorney, but I do know that an agreement not to pay child support generally would not hold up in court. There may be exceptions for artificial insemination, etc., but it's potentially a mine field, as far as I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
What if the child becomes some kinda child actor making millions? Can he still get a piece of the action? What if Voldemort kills the lesbian parents and the baby reflects the spell? Does he have to worry, or would the Dark Lord honor the sperm agreement? What if he turns gay himself, and then his gay partner really wants a kid, so they get one of the lesbians to make them their own baby. So it's like mirrored gay siblings but they're kept apart, and then later in life fall in love and then find out they're related so they can't marry, and sue him for loss of consortium? There's a lot to consider. Get a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:GET YOURSELF A FAMILY LAWYER BEFORE THE TURKEY BASTING. Needs to be in the OP, or the thread title.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 05:58
|
|
|
LordPants posted:Needs to be in the OP, or the thread title. The all new legal questions mega-o-wamma: TLDR Get a loving lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
Some questions pop up frequently enough that an OP FAQ would go far, assuming anyone read it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
It all basically boils down to "If you're coming here to ask if you need a lawyer then, yes, you need a lawyer."
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Javid posted:Some questions pop up frequently enough that an OP FAQ would go far, assuming anyone read it. No, because everybody's a special snowflake with a snowflake issue. I liked those sparkly gif someone had made a while back that said things like "Get a lawyer!" and "Joint and severally liable? You're screwed!", y'all should use those more often.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
Javid posted:Some questions pop up frequently enough that an OP FAQ would go far, assuming anyone read it. But at least if we had a comprehenseive faq\op about the common issues that pop up we could just respond with "#6 fool" and be done with it, rather than get into the same discussion page after page. xxEightxx fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Apr 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
General FAQs for legal questions are kind of pointless because everything is so nuanced based on jurisdiction and the facts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
What euphronius said, plus: I'd like to think that most folks who post answers here do so because they want to, so giving answers really shouldn't be so onerous that the harried, broken legal galley slaves are so beat down they have to resort to, "beep, boop, RTFFAQ No. 6" Hypothetically, if the exact same question came up so often that woozle wuzzle got so worn out he was unable to come up with new and entertaining ways to say, "you loving idiot" then maybe an "O.U.T.P.U.T. N.U.M.B.E.R. T.H.R.E.E." set of answers would be merited, but only until we could overnight to woozle a case of red bull, a thesaurus and a handwritten sovereign citizen brief.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
I've thought about an FAQ. If nothing else, creating it would be a good excuse to procrastinate doing actual work (kinda like the thread in general). But to do a proper one with resources and links would take a lot of actual work, defeating the entire purpose. Doing a quick one that calls people stupid could be momentarily amusing, but ultimately cuts down on the future potential of calling people stupid. Which means less future procrastination, which overall also means more work. So any way you slice it, it ends up causing more work than it saves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:I've thought about an FAQ. If nothing else, creating it would be a good excuse to procrastinate doing actual work (kinda like the thread in general). But to do a proper one with resources and links would take a lot of actual work, defeating the entire purpose. Doing a quick one that calls people stupid could be momentarily amusing, but ultimately cuts down on the future potential of calling people stupid. Which means less future procrastination, which overall also means more work. So any way you slice it, it ends up causing more work than it saves. I don't think there's any faq you could write that would be both broad and in-depth enough to be better than a five minute google search. Really most of the time people just want to know if they are in the kind of situation where they need a lawyer (they do). A faq on general legal issus doesn't help that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I don't think there's any faq you could write that would be both broad and in-depth enough to be better than a five minute google search. Really most of the time people just want to know if they are in the kind of situation where they need a lawyer (they do). A faq on general legal issus doesn't help that. I frequent a site that helps people do legal research. I'm not a lawyer or a paralegal, but I had to do a ton of legwork for a personal matter a long time ago so I got used to how to read statutes and where to look for real information (as opposed to ask.com). As a result, I've gotten good at helping truly clueless people (and so many of them are truly clueless). I've learned that some things are more or less pretty general. Such as: 1. Don't assume a notarized document is ironclad. It does not carry the weight of a court order and might be completely disregarded in court, depending on the type of case it is. 2. If you are a single father do not assume you have any legal rights whatsoever if you have not established legal paternity. 3. If you are a single mother do not assume the father has any legal obligations whatsoever if you have not established legal paternity. 3. No, you're not necessarily going to get off scott-free just because you weren't Mirandized. They don't always have to do that. 4. Really? Your ace-up-the-sleeve defense is that you're entitled to a jury of your peers, and these people aren't your "peers"? Hahahahahaha... 5. Getting out of that ticket is not a slam dunk just because there's a typo on the ticket. 6. Don't disregard a court order just because something has changed since then. It's a court order, not a court suggestion. If you want it changed go back to court. 7. If you're in Australia, don't ask what U.S. law says about your case. It's a different country. 8. Speaking of which, if you're in Arkansas don't get your hopes up because somebody in North Dakota did x, y, and z and got away with it. It's a different state. 9. Legally, "hostile work environment" probably doesn't mean what you think it does. It does not mean that it's your work environment and somebody is being hostile. 10. Yes, they can promote somebody to a position you expected to get even though you have seniority and are a model employee. Probably. It depends on why they did it. There's more, but you get the idea. Still, the reason why FAQs are worthless is because nobody pays attention to them or they think if they tell you every detail of the whole story there will be something that makes their case unique and an exception. I can't tell you how many times I've answered a question from somebody who started by saying they know what at-will employment means, and then asked if they can be fired for (some reason that's as at-will as it can get). When people have a legal problem a lot of them don't want to just have their question answered by a FAQ (if it can be). They want to talk about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
I don't like an faq because I want people to be encouraged to post their stuff only so we can get the occasional gem which results in a multi page flame war, like the guy who wanted to sue based on them using a certain brand of anaesthetic and he may have said something to a nurse. This is why I read the thread. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
LordPants posted:I don't like an faq because I want people to be encouraged to post their stuff only so we can get the occasional gem which results in a multi page flame war, like the guy who wanted to sue based on them using a certain brand of anaesthetic and he may have said something to a nurse. This is why I read the thread. Basically this. Plus it lets us non-lawyer types get some insight into how the law works, which is the interesting part (when some nitwit isn't asking how to commit copyright infringement).
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
LordPants posted:I don't like an faq because I want people to be encouraged to post their stuff only so we can get the occasional gem which results in a multi page flame war, like the guy who wanted to sue based on them using a certain brand of anaesthetic and he may have said something to a nurse. This is why I read the thread. This is exactly why I frequent this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
The worst part is that none of the interesting ones ever post a followup when it's all over >:[
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
Javid posted:The worst part is that none of the interesting ones ever post a followup when it's all over >:[ No, the worst part is when you come in post or mid poo poo storm and the OP has already deleted the stupid post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
Javid posted:The worst part is that none of the interesting ones ever post a followup when it's all over >:[ I got out of my jaywalking ticket, what more did you want to know?!?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 06:17
|
|
|
Javid posted:The worst part is that none of the interesting ones ever post a followup when it's all over >:[ Pookie kept coming back!
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 10:09
|
|
|
What happened to that guy that was trying to sue his former tenants long-distance for lost rent or something and kept popping up with very specific questions? It seemed like the whole thing was slowly unraveling around him but I want to know what eventually happened. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 12:13
|
|
|
I think I overstepped the bounds of meanness and told that guy off. He had an attorney (eventually), and it seemed like he was using the thread to try and skimp on how much work the attorney was doing. That'd be amusingly fine because he started asking questions about counter-suits, as his former tenants were suing him back. I've seen that before, where a landlord sues for $800 in back rent and it opens the door for his tenants to countersue for $5000. No doubt that guy was a crazy douchebag landlord that didn't repair anything and made unannounced visits. But he didn't listen to any advice or provide any information about his situation. It's pretty guaranteed that he lost his case, most likely with everything dismissed. The main takeaway: Being a landlord sucks. Everyone who thinks about keeping a former home to rent it out is making a gigantic mistake, and they never run the math right. And that goes double for crazy assholes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
It's all about the moments when E/N leaks into this thread. Especially when people find the E/N thread and points out how the poster has 'cleaned up' their story for the benefit of the lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's all about the moments when E/N leaks into this thread. Especially when people find the E/N thread and points out how the poster has 'cleaned up' their story for the benefit of the lawyers. That was indeed a beautiful moment. That guy got yelled at in two threads at the same time. I also follow this thread because I'm a second year student of Law in the Netherlands, so this is an insight into other systems of law, and the lawyers that operate in those systems. Btw, if anybody has any questions about Dutch Law, I'm not an expert, but I can find stuff pretty quickly and give you a general indication of what the law (and judges) say about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
I don't want to go into helldump territory but I just wandered into E/N now and there's a thread about private adoption and it's as glorious as what you'd expect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:No doubt that guy was a crazy douchebag landlord that didn't repair anything and made unannounced visits. woozle wuzzle posted:It's pretty guaranteed that he lost his case, most likely with everything dismissed. woozle wuzzle posted:The main takeaway: Being a landlord sucks. Ashcans posted:What happened to that guy that was trying to sue his former tenants long-distance for lost rent or something and kept popping up with very specific questions? It seemed like the whole thing was slowly unraveling around him but I want to know what eventually happened. babby's frist lawsoot. Things are good, I'm collecting, and my current tenants pay their rent on time and aren't destructive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
It could have been Kneel Before Zog instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
joat mon posted:It could have been Kneel Before Zog instead. "What's everyone getting so nasty and hostile about? I'm just treating you all like idiots by positing a hypothetical about a third person which is clearly an actual question about me trying to get away with being a scummy landlord?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
reyalsnogard posted:Things are good, I'm collecting You aren't collecting poo poo, 100% guaranteed. woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Apr 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:You aren't collecting poo poo, 100% guaranteed. Occasionally you get lucky, like when a bank accepts a piece of property in satisfaction of a loan without checking to see if a judgment lien was attached. In other news I may get to send the sheriff down to levy some bank owned property soon. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
Thanks lawyers (and non-lawyer dumbasses!) for all the time you put into this thread. I brought up to my friend that Michigan has no felony murder rule, and he claimed that felonies are prosecuted federally, so it doesn't matter if MI doesn't have that rule. His argument seemed to be that felonies are defined, prosecuted, and penalized at the national level, so Michigan's lack of a felony murder rule means dick. He full of poo poo or what? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
Groundskeeper Silly posted:Thanks lawyers (and non-lawyer dumbasses!) for all the time you put into this thread. He is 100% an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:36 |
|
|
Groundskeeper Silly posted:Thanks lawyers (and non-lawyer dumbasses!) for all the time you put into this thread. He's full of poo poo. States have what is called police power which lets them regulate for the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the inhabitants. In this context police doesn't mean criminal it means they can make laws about anything not constitutionally prohibited under the federal and state constitution. Each state creates their own comprehensive body of law, including a criminal code. Generally a misdemeanor is a minor offense carrying minimal to no imprisonment and a felony is a major offense with the possibility of significant jail time. In practice this gets fuzzy because arbitrarily making things felonies is a minimal effort way to get reelected for being tough on crime. The federal government lacks police power and can only make laws about things the Constitution of the United States specifically grants authority for. For example, federal murder laws do not cover the entire United States, but only to areas where the federal government has special jurisdiction based upon those constitutional grants. This means the federal government can prosecute murders occurring on the high seas, on property of the United States, in embassies, designated islands of bat guano, and other areas of specific authority. A state can just pass a law that effectively says "killing people in this state is a felony". Unless a specific federal law is violated Michigan would prosecute a murder under Michigan law. Sometimes things get weird where both a state and federal law are violated, say someone kills a federal officer in Michigan. The doctrine of dual sovereignty lets Michigan try them under Michigan law and the federal government try them for the same crime under federal law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 05:04
|
|