Griner Doesn't Have to Pay Spousal Support

[meyers7]

But Meyers , she is eating for 3....Including the 2 little ones. And they all got good appetites apparently.

Apparently.

 

[HGN]

Apparently.

I just hope my household never starts eating like that.

 

[Bestiarius]

As someone once said, the only two good things about Tennessee is Dolly Parton

And now you know why her waist is so thin. Nothing grows in the shade.

 

[BroadwayVa]

Are you serious?

Of course this is serious---this is a VERY VERY VERY serious topic who would make a joke of this topic????

 

[willtalk]

Never occurred to me until I saw the "$300 X 4 = $7000" thing.

Glory isn't actually "from" Tennessee anyway (Colorado). However her Tennessee education is not limited to UT - she went to high school in Knoxville as well.

I never thought that you did. I just saw this as an opportunity to pontificate. lol.

 

[JS]

Of course this is serious---this is a VERY VERY VERY serious topic who would make a joke of this topic????

Sarals was reacting to your suggestion that the sperm donor would be liable for child support, a proposition Sarals evidently found preposterous.

If indeed artificial insemination is done with involvement of a physician, using sperm from a sperm bank (the situation Sarals may have had in mind), child support would be highly dubious in any state.

However, there are other cases -- roughly characterized as homemade artificial inseminations, especially by a man known to the mother, especially without an airtight pre-conception agreement ruling out child support -- in which an award of child support wouldn't be dubious at all.

Of course this thread (like many here) gives people the opportunity to indulge in fact-free dissertation, as there is no publicly available information as to the circumstances of Ms. Johnson's pregnancy.

 

[BroadwayVa]

[QUOTE="JS, post: 1394763, member: 6"]Sarals was reacting to your suggestion that the sperm donor would be liable for child support, a proposition Sarals evidently found preposterous. REALLY?????

If indeed artificial insemination is done with involvement of a physician, using sperm from a sperm bank (the situation Sarals may have had in mind), child support would be highly dubious in any state. And who said otherwise??

However, there are other cases -- roughly characterized as homemade artificial inseminations, especially by a man known to the mother, especially without an airtight pre-conception agreement ruling out child support -- in which an award of child support wouldn't be dubious at all.
And why should a woman be responsible for what a man has rendered???

Of course this thread (like many here) gives people the opportunity to indulge in fact-free dissertation, as there is no publicly available information as to the circumstances of Ms. Johnson's pregnancy.[/QUOTE]

The original posting: What in this isn't factual?? Facetious Maybe

ISN'T THE SPERM DONOR RESPONSIBLE FOR GLORY'S CHILD???? If a guy meets a girl in a bar and then "donates" sperm he becomes responsible for any child that may come from that collision. Griner, most probably wasn't the sperm donor!! Glory has to look for the guy who donated at the sperm bank.

Obviously you are not giving this thread the serious consideration it really deserves. Kind sir; please elucidate that which is fact free??

 

[BroadwayVa]

[QUOTE="JS, post: 1394763, member: 6"]Sarals was reacting to your suggestion that the sperm donor would be liable for child support, a proposition Sarals evidently found preposterous. REALLY?????

If indeed artificial insemination is done with involvement of a physician, using sperm from a sperm bank (the situation Sarals may have had in mind), child support would be highly dubious in any state. And who said otherwise??

However, there are other cases -- roughly characterized as homemade artificial inseminations, especially by a man known to the mother, especially without an airtight pre-conception agreement ruling out child support -- in which an award of child support wouldn't be dubious at all.
And why should a woman be responsible for what a man has rendered???

Of course this thread (like many here) gives people the opportunity to indulge in fact-free dissertation, as there is no publicly available information as to the circumstances of Ms. Johnson's pregnancy.

The original posting: What in this isn't factual?? Facetious Maybe

ISN'T THE SPERM DONOR RESPONSIBLE FOR GLORY'S CHILD???? If a guy meets a girl in a bar and then "donates" sperm he becomes responsible for any child that may come from that collision. Griner, most probably wasn't the sperm donor!! Glory has to look for the guy who donated at the sperm bank.

Obviously you are not giving this thread the serious consideration it really deserves. Kind sir; please elucidate that which is fact free??[/QUOTE]

 

[BroadwayVa]

Jed and Ellie May Clampett, Jethro Bodine and Granny were from Tennessee. So why did the writers of the Beverly Hillbillies pick THAT state? Stereotype of course.

OK it's very possible that the stereotype was not earned. But usually where there's smoke, there's fire. Anyway, Tennessee-educated Glory continues to reinforce the perception, earned or otherwise, in 2015.

With her pre occupation of finances I would have expected her to have gone to Harvard!! Possum possum.
Until ya all has cooked up a passel of french fried road killed possum you ain't come close to this side of heaven.. Unless it is
Cane break Rattler stir fried!! Cotton mouth doesn't come near it.\
If you think TV's renditions of Characters from Tenn---you should have seen how the old Hollywood movies of the 1930's treated the Connecticut Hicks/Yokels --Yep, bub I'll take you to the 2 oclock train --it ain't 3 o clock yet, I'll get old bessy and hitch her to the buggy and haul you there after granny puts up the preserves. Aaa Ah, we'll get right on it. No smoke and not even embers then --maybe 50 years prior. My experience, and I've actually lived in many states, is that we are nearly a bland country--few of the verbal manerisms of the past inflict us. As I spoke in most states few could tell from where I came. Aaa ah, no sir ee.

 

[JS]

JS: "If indeed artificial insemination is done with involvement of a physician, using sperm from a sperm bank (the situation Sarals may have had in mind), child support would be highly dubious in any state."

BVA: And who said otherwise??

You say otherwise as quoted below, i.e. Glory should go looking for the donor to the sperm bank. To make this exercise non-dubious, the facts would have to be different from what I said.

JS: "However, there are other cases -- roughly characterized as homemade artificial inseminations, especially by a man known to the mother, especially without an airtight pre-conception agreement ruling out child support -- in which an award of child support wouldn't be dubious at all."

BVA: And why should a woman be responsible for what a man has rendered???

-- Because she lives in one of the roughly two-thirds of the states that have adopted the Uniform Parentage Act ("UPA"), and, as I said before, especially where the insemination had physician involvement.

-- Because of other circumstances, as I also previously indicated -- e.g. anonymity of sperm bank donation, or pre-conception agreement between known donor and recipient, which lead a court to find against an award of child support even in cases not governed by the UPA,

Read about these points here: http://family-law.freeadvice.com/fa.../artificial_insemination_donor_obligation.htm

JS: "Of course this thread (like many here) gives people the opportunity to indulge in fact-free dissertation, as there is no publicly available information as to the circumstances of Ms. Johnson's pregnancy."

BVA: The original posting: What in this isn't factual?? Facetious Maybe

I refer, as I said, to the absence of publicly available facts about the insemination, which as the article indicates are crucial in determining liability for child support.

BVA : ISN'T THE SPERM DONOR RESPONSIBLE FOR GLORY'S CHILD???? If a guy meets a girl in a bar and then "donates" sperm he becomes responsible for any child that may come from that collision. Griner, most probably wasn't the sperm donor!! Glory has to look for the guy who donated at the sperm bank.

Being responsible in a physical sense, which you seem to be talking about, and responsible in a financial sense, which depends on the facts and the applicable law, are not necessarily the same thing.

BVA: Obviously you are not giving this thread the serious consideration it really deserves.

I have no idea why you would say that.

Kind sir; please elucidate that which is fact free??

I hope I have done so. The "fact free" BTW is a little self-deprecatory jest about the speculation-based opinions that come natural to us Boneyarders. I do that often. The absence of important facts in the present discussion is, moreover, a fact.

 

[BroadwayVa]

JS: "However, there are other cases -- roughly characterized as homemade artificial inseminations, especially by a man known to the mother, especially without an airtight pre-conception agreement ruling out child support -- in which an award of child support wouldn't be dubious at all."

BVA: And why should a woman be responsible for what a man has rendered???

-- Because she lives in one of the roughly two-thirds of the states that have adopted the Uniform Parentage Act ("UPA"), and, as I said before, especially where the insemination had physician involvement.

-- Because of other circumstances, as I also previously indicated -- e.g. anonymity of sperm bank donation, or pre-conception agreement between known donor and recipient, which lead a court to find against an award of child support even in cases not governed by the UPA,

Read about these points here: http://family-law.freeadvice.com/fa.../artificial_insemination_donor_obligation.htm

JS: "Of course this thread (like many here) gives people the opportunity to indulge in fact-free dissertation, as there is no publicly available information as to the circumstances of Ms. Johnson's pregnancy."

BVA: The original posting: What in this isn't factual?? Facetious Maybe







I refer, as I said, to the absence of publicly available facts about the insemination, which as the article indicates are crucial in determining liability for child support.

BVA : ISN'T THE SPERM DONOR RESPONSIBLE FOR GLORY'S CHILD???? If a guy meets a girl in a bar and then "donates" sperm he becomes responsible for any child that may come from that collision. Griner, most probably wasn't the sperm donor!! Glory has to look for the guy who donated at the sperm bank.

Being responsible in a physical sense, which you seem to be talking about, and responsible in a financial sense, which depends on the facts and the applicable law, are not necessarily the same thing.

BVA: Obviously you are not giving this thread the serious consideration it really deserves.

I have no idea why you would say that.

Kind sir; please elucidate that which is fact free??

Thoses with a limited sense of humor---live a very unhealthy life.

One point you failed to realize in this AMERICA laws and regulations are all subject to revision, change, and elimination because some one asked the questions I asked. No regulation or law is fixed in lead.

Loosens up and live longer!!

I hope I have done so. The "fact free" BTW is a little self-deprecatory jest about the speculation-based opinions that come natural to us Boneyarders. I do that often. The absence of important facts in the present discussion is, moreover, a fact.

 

[JS]

One point you failed to realize in this AMERICA laws and regulations are all subject to revision, change, and elimination because some one asked the questions I asked. No regulation or law is fixed in lead.

Well, if you want to talk about what the law should be rather than what it is, please reflect that there would be no sperm banks if a donor's reward would be a lawsuit for child support filed by a woman he never heard of.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Well, if you want to talk about what the law should be rather than what it is, please reflect that there would be no sperm banks if a donor's reward would be a lawsuit for child support filed by a woman he never heard of.

Yes, it would be absurd to even think about making a donor to a sperm bank financially liable for child support. I think it is equally absurd in most cases to expect a private donor to have liability.

 

[JS]

Yes, it would be absurd to even think about making a donor to a sperm bank financially liable for child support. I think it is equally absurd in most cases to expect a private donor to have liability.

Then you'll no doubt find this recent case absurd.

Donor held liable even though he signed a written agreement with the mom that he wouldn't be. As noted earlier in this thread, do-it-yourself artificial insemination where the donor is known to the mom runs a risk of liability.

Kansas law apparently makes physician involvement a must. Interesting comments on the pros and cons of that: expense, genetic defect control, documentation that the insemination was really artificial rather than natural.

As the article notes, there will be an appeal. One might argue that without a physician there's no automatic immunity, but that when it comes to a consequent weighing of the facts a written agreement should trump other circumstances.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

She's asking $7,000 a month for her food budget

“When I go to the grocery store I literally spend $300 every week, sometimes it's less because I don’t have it,” Johnson testified.

hmmm $300 a week (not sure I spend that much for 2 people) X 4 weeks (4.25) = $1275. Sooooo where'd the $7000 come from???

and $6,000 for hired help and the rest to live on. (that would be $7000)

Can you say Golddigger?

$300 a week? I barely spend $400 a month and I buy mostly organic food.