Sounds confusing. But it would seem ridiculous to me for the donor to be litigated against.
EDIT: Just read your edit. No wonder I was confused. I didn't even notice the date on it.
Sounds confusing. But it would seem ridiculous to me for the donor to be litigated against.
EDIT: Just read your edit. No wonder I was confused. I didn't even notice the date on it.
Mom to Raven and Rudy the greyhound
Missing always: Tasha & Tommy, at the Rainbow Bridge
haha you are just trying to confuse us, aren't you? You do know how easy that is, don't you?![]()
Originally Posted by JenBKR
I am afraid I was the most confused LOL that's what I get for not paying close attention..... it's all the pregnancy's fault... that's my story and I'm sticking to it hahaha
I did put the correct link at the top of the page now if you want to read it![]()
R.I.P my dear Sweet Teddy. You will be missed forever. We love you.
http://www.hannahshands.etsy.com
http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriot...480.xml&coll=1
here is another link.
So it wasn't annonymous and he was present at the birth.... but I still don't think that makes him liable. To me that opens a new legal precedent for future sperm donors in cases like this to be liable for child support.
R.I.P my dear Sweet Teddy. You will be missed forever. We love you.
http://www.hannahshands.etsy.com
Copyright © 2001-2013 Pet of the Day.com
Bookmarks