What's new
By:
Filters

Kansas wants sperm donor to pay child support

Archie Moses

Archie Moses

Well-Known Member
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/02/sperm-donor-child-support/1803725/

TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) — A U.S. man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple after answering an online ad is fighting efforts by Kansas state authorities to suddenly force him to pay child support for the now 3-year-old girl, arguing that he and the women signed an agreement waiving all of his parental rights.

The case hinges on the fact that no doctors were used for the artificial insemination. The state argues that because William Marotta didn't work through a clinic or doctor, as required by state law, he can be held responsible for about $6,000 that the child's biological mother received through public assistance — as well as future child support.

Angela de Rocha, spokeswoman for the Kansas Department for Children and Families, said that when a single mother seeks benefits for a child, it's routine for the department to try to determine the child's paternity and require the father to make support payments to lessen the potential cost to taxpayers.

Marotta, a 46-year-old Topeka resident, answered an online ad in 2009 from a local couple, Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, who said they were seeking a sperm donor. After exchanging emails and meeting, the three signed an agreement relieving Marotta of any financial or paternal responsibility.

But instead of working with a doctor, Marotta agreed to drop off a container with his sperm at the couple's home and the women successfully handled the artificial insemination themselves. Schreiner become pregnant with a girl.

Late last year, after she and Bauer broke up, Schreiner received public assistance from the state to help care for the girl.

The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed a court petition against Marotta in October, asking that he be required to reimburse the state for the benefits and make future child support payments. Marotta is asking that the case be dismissed, arguing that he's not legally the child's father, only a sperm donor.

A hearing is set for Tuesday.

Marotta told The Topeka-Capital Journal that he is "a little scared about where this is going to go, primarily for financial reasons." His attorney didn't immediately return a phone message Wednesday from The Associated Press.

His attorney didn't immediately return a phone message Wednesday from The Associated Press, and there was no listing for his home phone number in Topeka. Listings for Schreiner and Bauer were either incorrect or out of service, and Schreiner did not respond to a message sent by Facebook.

Court records show that Marotta, Schreiner and Bauer signed an agreement in March 2009, with the women agreeing to "hold him harmless" financially. The agreement also said the child's birth certificate would not list a father.

But the state contends the agreement isn't valid because a doctor wasn't involved.

Under a 1994 Kansas law, a sperm donor isn't considered the father only when a donor provides sperm to a licensed physician for artificial insemination of a woman who isn't the donor's wife. The result is an incentive for donors and prospective mothers to work with a doctor, de Rocha said.

"I believe that is the intent of the law, so that we don't end up with these ambiguous situations," she told The Associated Press.

Also, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled in October 2007 that a sperm donor who works through a licensed physician can't legally be considered a child's father — and doesn't have the right to visit the child or have a role in its upbringing — absent a formal, written agreement. But the case involved a sperm donor who was seeking access to a child but had only an informal, unwritten agreement with the child's mother.

Linda Elrod, a law professor and director of Washburn University's Children and Family Law program, said the law seems clear: Sperm donors who don't want to be held liable for child support need to work with a doctor.

"Other than that, the general rule is strict liability for sperm," said Elrod, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court case.
Click to expand...
 
When I lived in the Mid-West I met plenty of people from Kansas and they always were the nicest people you'd ever want to meet. But collectively speaking some really, really strange **** comes out of that state.
 
To me this is insane. This man is not the father. The other half of that lesbian couple should be paying the child support. not this man.

This is not the lesbian mothers going after this man it is the state government messing everything up. Idiocy.
 
Stoked said:
To me this is insane. This man is not the father. The other half of that lesbian couple should be paying the child support. not this man.

This is not the lesbian mothers going after this man it is the state government messing everything up. Idiocy.
Click to expand...

I completely agree, I am all for gay marriage and they need the same rules as everyone else.
 
The lawyer who drew up the waiver of parental rights should be sued.

If they didn't use a lawyer, they were foolish.
 
This seed was not spilled & surely has The Lord's blessing. Paying earthly sacrifices for heavenly blessings is the least this righteous man should do.
 
A few questions...

Are same sex marriages legal in Kansas, if so were they Married? If they weren't married, the woman that didn't give birth, I'm guessing the state can't legally force that woman to pay child support. I'm guessing the lesbian couple didn't use a doctor because of financial issues, meaning if they split the state has to step in and use tax money to help the mother raise he daughter after she, and this other woman frivolously thought it would be fun to have a daughter then split not long after. I'd rather this man who didn't know the law on this subject pay then the state using people's hard earned tax dollars.

I feel for this guy, but I also have no problem with the state wanting to protect themselves from having to use the tax money to start helping many more gay couples from finding easy way to have kids without having to make a commitment to these kids and each other.
 
Thee jazz fan said:
A few questions...

Are same sex marriages legal in Kansas, if so were they Married? If they weren't married, the woman that didn't give birth, I'm guessing the state can't legally force that woman to pay child support. I'm guessing the lesbian couple didn't use a doctor because of financial issues, meaning if they split the state has to step in and use tax money to help the mother raise he daughter after she, and this other woman frivolously thought it would be fun to have a daughter then split not long after. I'd rather this man who didn't know the law on this subject pay then the state using people's hard earned tax dollars.

I feel for this guy, but I also have no problem with the state wanting to protect themselves from having to use the tax money to start helping many more gay couples from finding easy way to have kids without having to make a commitment to these kids and each other.
Click to expand...

Them being gay has nothing to do with it, other than bigoted laws not allowing them to marry. The same situation could apply to surrogate mothers/fathers for straight couples.
 
Thee jazz fan said:
A few questions...

Are same sex marriages legal in Kansas, if so were they Married? If they weren't married, the woman that didn't give birth, I'm guessing the state can't legally force that woman to pay child support. I'm guessing the lesbian couple didn't use a doctor because of financial issues, meaning if they split the state has to step in and use tax money to help the mother raise he daughter after she, and this other woman frivolously thought it would be fun to have a daughter then split not long after. I'd rather this man who didn't know the law on this subject pay then the state using people's hard earned tax dollars.

I feel for this guy, but I also have no problem with the state wanting to protect themselves from having to use the tax money to start helping many more gay couples from finding easy way to have kids without having to make a commitment to these kids and each other.
Click to expand...
That may be the dumbest thing I've heard.
 
I can see the newscasts now.

"The landmark ruling in Kansas concerning the liability incurred by a sperm donor for child support has had a somewhat unintended consequence. Sperm donations, which had been relatively consistent for years nationwide, have come to a grinding halt. It seems that men everywhere have no desire to become legally responsible for paying child support as a result of what they feel is a charitable act. As a result, sperm banks and donor organizations are actively advertising and marketing, doing their best to find donors willing to provide sperm for artificial insemination. All to no avail, apparently."
 
If a woman gives her baby up for adoption right after birth then the family that adopts takes public assistance does the state go after the birth mother to reimburse the costs?

The laws concerning child custody and child support are so ridiculously messed up and unfair to men. Something's got to give.
 
The problem here is that the donation was not official. You can't just go and take sperm in a tupperware container to some woman's house and let her impregnate herself.

I understand the guy's grief, but why didn't you go through an actual institution for this? If it wasn't for laws like this, how could you go after anyone for child support. You could claim that any time you impregnate a woman it was a "donation." Usually, sex acts only involved two people so it'd be one person's word against another.
 
JimLes said:
The problem here is that the donation was not official. You can't just go and take sperm in a tupperware container to some woman's house and let her impregnate herself.

I understand the guy's grief, but why didn't you go through an actual institution for this? If it wasn't for laws like this, how could you go after anyone for child support. You could claim that any time you impregnate a woman it was a "donation." Usually, sex acts only involved two people so it'd be one person's word against another.
Click to expand...

right but that same impregnated woman has a wide array of options that allow her to avoid any financial responsibility for the child, while the male accomplice is bound by whatever decision she makes. I thin men should have 90 days from the time they are formally informed that they have impregnated a woman to have a "male abortion" or later to have a "father's adoption option." In the abortion case the father would have to give the mother the going rate for an abortion and then he'd be in the same financial situation any woman can chose to be in when she doesn't want the baby. In the father's adoption option he'd have to go through the process a mother would go through to give the baby up for adoption, even if only to have the mother adopt.

Fair's fair, right?
 
JimLes said:
The problem here is that the donation was not official. You can't just go and take sperm in a tupperware container to some woman's house and let her impregnate herself.

I understand the guy's grief, but why didn't you go through an actual institution for this?
Click to expand...
Cost? Pretty sure those "institutions" charge.
 
JimLes said:
The problem here is that the donation was not official. You can't just go and take sperm in a tupperware container to some woman's house and let her impregnate herself.

I understand the guy's grief, but why didn't you go through an actual institution for this? If it wasn't for laws like this, how could you go after anyone for child support. You could claim that any time you impregnate a woman it was a "donation." Usually, sex acts only involved two people so it'd be one person's word against another.
Click to expand...
this is what I was talking about basically.
 
Gameface said:
If a woman gives her baby up for adoption right after birth then the family that adopts takes public assistance does the state go after the birth mother to reimburse the costs?

The laws concerning child custody and child support are so ridiculously messed up and unfair to men. Something's got to give.
Click to expand...
this is not the same as what happened in Kansas.
 
Thee jazz fan said:
this is not the same as what happened in Kansas.
Click to expand...

No, in Kansas a man gave a couple a sperm sample and signed a paper saying he wasn't going to have anything to do with the child. Your point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top