Sperm Donor Told To Pay Child Support

http://www.bing.com/search?q=sperm+donor+child+support&form=msnwis&refig=9e7e9e1e96864a99b70cae5e1c03f2d0

A man who provided sperm to a lesbian couple in response to an online ad is the father of a child born to one of the women and must pay child support, a Kansas judge ruled Wednesday.

Topeka resident William Marotta had argued that he had waived his parental rights and didn't intend to be a father. Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi rejected that claim, saying the parties didn't involve a licensed physician in the artificial insemination process and thus Marotta didn't qualify as a sperm donor, The Topeka Capital-Journal reported.

"In this case, quite simply, the parties failed to perform to statutory requirement of the Kansas Parentage Act in not enlisting a licensed physician at some point in the artificial insemination process, and the parties' self-designation of (Marotta) as a sperm donor is insufficient to relieve (Marotta) of parental right and responsibilities to the child," Mattivi wrote.

The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in October 2012 seeking to have Marotta declared the father of a child born to Jennifer Schreiner in 2009. The state was seeking to have Marotta declared the child's father so he can be held responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance the state provided, as well as future child support.

Marotta opposed that action, saying he had contacted Schreiner and her partner at the time, Angela Bauer, in response to an ad they placed on Craigslist seeking a sperm donor. He said he signed a contract waiving his parental rights and responsibilities.

Related: University of Utah to review sperm bank mix-up

Attorneys for the state contended the contract was moot because the parties didn't follow a 1994 Kansas law requiring a licensed physician to perform the artificial insemination when donors were involved.

During oral arguments at a hearing in October, Timothy Keck, co-lead counsel for the state, said the case focused on child support. Marotta's attorney, Benoit Swinnen, cited several court rulings he said support the argument that Marotta is legally a sperm donor and not required to pay child support.

Swinnen also argued that the Kansas statute doesn't specifically require the artificial insemination to be carried out by a physician.

Court documents show Schreiner indicated she didn't know the name of the donor or "have any information" about him in her application for child support. However, a sperm donor contract between Marotta and the couple includes his name, and the agency noted the couple talked about their appreciation for him in an interview with The Capital-Journal.

A filing Wednesday by the DCF argues the sperm donor contract overlooks "the well-established law in this state that a person cannot contract away his or her obligations to support their child."

The right for support belongs to the child, not the parents, the filing says.

The agency said it also received different versions of the donor contract from Marotta and Schreiner, suggesting that the document "may be invalid on its face."

"We stand by that contract," Swinnen said. "The insinuation is offensive, and we are responding vigorously to that. We stand by our story. There was no personal relationship whatsoever between my client and the mother, or the partner of the mother, or the child. Anything the state insinuates is vilifying my client, and I will address it."

This has been on-going for awhile.

Just to be clear the lesiban couple is not demanding the child support the state is. After the couple filed for state benefits the State wanted the name of the father and details to go after child support from the father, rather than pay full state benefits.

I hope he can still appeal as this is just silly. All parties entered into a contract in good faith and this should have bearing on the legality of the contract.

Old news.

That is how I feel, If they entered into contract, licensed physician or not, he should not be required to pay the partner that does not have custody should have to pay.

States need to enforce this, since in many cases, child support money is spent by the recipient parent on themselves, and not the needs of the child.

Not sure how I feel on this.

On the one hand, it is clearly ridiculous. Whether or not a physician was involved, the circumstances are rather cut-and-dried that this fellow is only a DNA donor and not a daddy.

On the other hand, however, Kansas is trying to avoid the misuse of public funds and lighten the load borne by its taxpayers.

I'm still going to side with the donor (and the couple, for that matter!). For one, the amount of time and money spent by the state of Kansas to pursue this is going to make the affair pointless. It's very clear that someone wants to make a point instead of having a legitimate concern for tax dollars or child advocacy. Moreover, this isn't a situation that is likely to crop up with the sort of regularity that demands vigorous prosecution.

Call me cynical, but I would imagine that's why the mother couple tried to avoid naming the donor. I've never gone through the welfare process, but I have a friend who works in public assistance and am told the whole thing is a Byzantine nightmare (though this obviously varies a bit state-to-state).

Also, at the risk of being labeled a masculinist, I can't help but feel this is another lop-sided attempt to portray men as the primary providers and hound men for money. If a gay male couple had acquired a surrogate and skipped over some triviality under the law, I strongly doubt that child services and the state attorney general would come banging on the surrogate's door if the male couple had to apply for state assistance. I notice the judge is female and state agencies have a certain amount of leniency when it comes to shopping for judges (defense attorneys can influence this, too). Anyone know who the prosecutor or complainant is?

I agree with both Kara and Onorgul in their arguments.

I did note, however, this little snip-it:


Now, if this is true and there are two versions of the contract that both parties didn't agree on, then that shows that there wasn't a contract to begin with. So they should have lost based on the fact that they lied to the court, not because of intent of the two parties.

(Legal side of me talking)

But I still think its BS for Kansas to do this though.

One thing that irks me about this is if the state is paying for the baby then obviously the couple isn't financially stable. Why would you intentionally go out of your way to have a baby when you can't support it?

I live below the poverty line yet I've never signed up for personal assistance. I want a baby, but only when I meet the right person and can afford it. It's not fair to me or another life by just being irresponsible. I see people where I live abuse the benefits to no end every day. It's just sickening.

Kansas must be way different from where I live though. Single mothers here get hospital bills and everything paid for when they have the baby and get assistance pretty easily.

I don't think it's fair when someone is forced to pay when they thought they were legally free from obligations, but this is somewhat different.

I feel like going via craigslist and not contacting a doctor was a dumb way to handle things. It's obviously their own fault. That tied in with the other aspects of shady paperwork makes it worse.

Because if people thought like that, we wouldn't have 2/3 of our child population at all.

Or all the welfare abuse that is rampant across the country.

Don't forget, it is in the minds of some people that their entire purpose in life is to breed and live off the government. That's the only way they can survive, because why should they get a job when they earn more money leeching off the system?

Well maybe I have too much pride or something then. I know single people not working at all getting as much money as me working 32~34 hours a week at minimum wage.

I think about it sometimes. It doesn't really seem fair. haha.

It's even worse when single mothers and fathers apply for welfare....even though they are the parents of the same kids they are claiming....and even still live with each other....

The whole system is screwed. There are a few people I've known who are in happy relationships and have kids, but haven't married their partners simply because they can milk more welfare money that way.

What makes you think they weren't financially stable at the outset? This particular issue is a couple years in the making. If you check the timing, it would not be unusual that one or both of the couple lost a job or took a severe pay cut after getting pregnant or giving birth. With the nonsense that employers have pulled, I imagine it is only FMLA that has kept many from terminating women who take maternity leave and are therefore not working for a couple weeks.

Besides your rants of things that you don't fully understand, I don't think they were financially stable from the outset because of 2 things:

1) They went to Craig's list for a donor.

2) They did not use a physician to impregnate the mother.

Those two items shows that they were not only not financially stable, but also lacking on common sense...

Yeah times change, financial circumstances differ. People loose their jobs (esp in this economy). If we expected people to wait until there is no variability in life for 18-30 years before they have kids, there would be no children.

This is total BS, I have tons of sympathy for the guy. He didn't get to participate in the fun of making the kid, and he still has to pay for it. Why, because he didn't file some legal paper work? That's bullsh!t, I shouldn't have to file papers if I wanna give to my sperm to my lesbian friends. I hope he appeals and I hope he wins.

Oh dear, yes, I certainly don't understand the tanked economy and increased unemployment rate. I should totally latch onto your personal conspiracy bias that suggests everyone in the world is a mooch who enjoys living an impoverished lifestyle on government checks.

I can think of a variety of reasons why someone would employ unconventional methods to accomplish something. Post facto it might have been a bad idea, but I tend to be of the opinion that people smugly making hindsight judgments should have their mouths sewn onto their ***.

Is that you Ellen Degeneres ?

Really, the lesbian couple has the opportunity to intervene here. If they want to negate the state's overreach, they should get off their *** and reimburse the guy they know has no business paying the child support.

If I was the guy, I would appeal to them in that was as well.

I just want to know what this lesbian couple looks like...

Wait I found them!

That probably won't happen. The couple went to the State for financial support, the State turned around and forced the donor to pay child support. The State essentially weaseled its way out of having to fork over money by gifting the couple with the golden goose they already had.

So the couple can either be nice and refuse the child support payments from the donor while surviving by their own means (without State assistance), or they can take the child support payments and have all the money they need, and leave the donor screwed.

Child is going to grow up in Kansas that is child abuse.

I can agree with the lacking in common sense part, but how does it indicate financial instability?

Harried and not wearing makeup I bet.

I'm guessing the donor assumed he could have some sort of threesome and it didn't turn out that way.

If they were financially stable, wouldn't they have gone to an actual doctor to get impregnated?

If they were financially stable, wouldn't they have gone to a sperm bank to get impregnated instead of finding Joe Blow off the street through a website?

Those two issues points to financial instability BEFORE they even got pregnant...

I zoomed over the title, and just assumed the thread was going to be based on this. :/

More coffee needed...

now he can have one with the state



this is pretty dumb though but if that's the way the law is written he's ***.

sadly nothing can be done to punish this irresponsible couple without punishing the child for something it had nothing to do with.

Question... Can't the guy just take the kid then?

He stated he didn't want to be in the kid's life.

The lesbian couple also stated that they didn't want him in their life either.

So, I'm taking that as a no.