Subscribe
Shop Local
Magazine
Gas Prices
Today's Poll!Kansas tries to make sperm donor pay child support
William Marotta, who is being asked by the state of Kansas to pay child support after providing sperm to a same-sex couple, speaks about his ordeal at his attorney's office in Topeka, Kan. on Monday, Dec. 31, 2012. Angela Bauer told The Topeka Capital-Journal on Saturday that she and her former partner, Jennifer Schreiner, are "kind of at a loss" about the Kansas Department for Children and Families' recent decision to file a child support claim against William Marotta. Marotta provided sperm that was used to artificially inseminate Schreiner three years ago. (AP Photo/The Topeka Capital Journal, Jeff Davis) Photo by The Associated Press.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — The state of Kansas is trying to force a man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple to pay child support, arguing that the agreement he and the women signed releasing him from all parental duties was invalid because they didn't go through a doctor.
Under Kansas law, a doctor's involvement shields a man from being held responsible for a child conceived through artificial insemination. At least 10 other states have similar laws, including California, Illinois and Missouri, according to the Kansas Department for Children and Families.
William Marotta and the couple he helped have a daughter didn't go through a doctor, so the department is asking a state court to hold him responsible for about $6,000 that the child's biological mother received through public assistance — as well as future child support.
The department also asked the court to appoint an attorney to represent the now 3-year-old girl, independently of her mother.
Marotta is asking that the case be dismissed, arguing that he is not the child's legal father. A hearing is set for Tuesday.
Department spokeswoman Angela de Rocha said Wednesday that when a single mother seeks benefits for a child, the department routinely tries to determine the child's paternity and require the father to make support payments to lessen the potential cost to taxpayers.
She argued that the law regarding artificial insemination is an incentive for donors and prospective mothers to work with a doctor.
"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.
Marotta, a 46-year-old Topeka resident, answered an ad on Craigslist in 2009 from Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, a local couple who said they were seeking a sperm donor.
After exchanging emails and meeting, Marotta and the couple signed an agreement in which the women agreed to "hold him harmless" financially. It also said the child's birth certificate would not list a father.
But the state agency argues the agreement isn't valid, because instead of working with a doctor, Marotta agreed to drop off containers with his sperm at the couple's home, according to prepared court documents the department gave to the AP late Wednesday.
The women handled the artificial insemination themselves using a syringe, and Schreiner eventually became pregnant, according to the documents. The couple broke up in 2010, and last year, Schreiner received public assistance from the state to help care for the girl.
"My ex-partner and I wanted to have a baby," Schreiner said in a written statement to the department in January 2012, also included in the department's latest filing. "We were a gay couple so we had a sperm donor."
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 return a phone message Wednesday from the AP, and there was no listing for his home phone number in Topeka.
Phone numbers listed for Schreiner and Bauer were either incorrect or out of service, and Schreiner did not respond to a message sent by Facebook.
The department first filed a petition against Marotta in Shawnee County District Court in October, asking that he be required to reimburse the state for the benefits and make future child support payments.
Along with the 1994 law regarding artificial insemination, the department cited a 2007 Kansas Supreme Court ruling. In that case, the court decided 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 or help raise the child — absent a formal, written agreement.
However, that case involved a sperm donor who was seeking access to a child but had only an informal, unwritten agreement with the child's mother. Marotta's attorneys contend the state is reading it incorrectly.
Still, 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.
Marry Me
Comments
herekitty 4 months, 2 weeks ago
He should NOT be held respondable since there are signed waivers. I believe as my wife also believes the other woman that split up should be held as the respondable party! They where the ones who wanted to bring a baby into this world. Again this goes to show 2 woman or 2 men are not set-up to have babies!
mmhh 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Herekitty, instead of making this an opportunity to support the denial of basic human rights, perhaps you could look at this as an example of WHY the state of Kansas should've recognized those womens' equal rights in the first place. If these two women were married and jointly sought to create life, the ex partner would be treated EXACTLY like the absent husband she is and would be paying child support.
xhepera 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Huh? This "goes" to show nothing of the sort. It merely shows your own prejudicial feelings on the subject. And what does "set-up to have babies" mean? Are you referring to their genitalia? That has nothing to do with caring for and rearing a child, which many gay and lesbian couples do a hell of a lot better than many heteros I know.
spelchek 4 months, 2 weeks ago
"He|| of a lot better"? You mean like going against the lifestyle homos work so hard for society to accept by letting a hetero impregnate you then turning around to ask for government assistance to raise the baby by proxy of the hetero? That kind of better? This guy didn't think it through, neither did the so called sperm needing lesbians.
evenkeel 4 months, 2 weeks ago
I guess it is some kind of "new" biology. So mmhh, without getting too graphic, please educate me on how two women are jointly going to create life? It's a mystery to me.
Marraige -- The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
Words have meaning.
xhepera 4 months, 2 weeks ago
The "new" biology of which you speak is a straw man. It's obvious that two women cannot conceive a child with one another. That's not the argument here. And creating a life is a quite separate issue from protecting and nurturing one. As far as laws, how marriage is defined and words having meaning, you just remember that when the bigoted ban on marriage equality is ruled unconstitutional.
Sequoia 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Actually, my dictionary defines "marriage" as "the state of being married; wedlock. A wedding. Any close union."
Pursuant to Missouri law Section 451.010, "Marriage is considered in law as a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is essential."
Laws passed in 1939 prohibit marriage between certain relatives and those who lack the capacity to enter legal contracts, such as young children, for example.
Missouri law states that it is "public policy" to recognize only marriages between a man and a woman. This law was passed in 1996, a perfect example of the so-called "conservative movement" taking a liberal action by passing over-reactive legislation to a problem that doesn't exist just to make a political point.
However, you'll notice that there is nothing in the DEFINITION of marriage relating to gender. The DEFINITION of marriage is simply wedlock or close union in the nature of a civil contract. Missouri law recognizes only certain marriages.
In spiritual terms, many churches recognize the holy committed union between two people of the same sex. The courts ought to take a stand for religious freedom and require that civil law recognize these marriages.
We shall see.
spelchek 4 months, 2 weeks ago
"The courts ought to take a stand for religious freedom" -- Yes, and rule the way you see things, otherwise we're all bigots...right?
Sequoia 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Don't put words in my mouth, please. Feel free to address the words I actually used.
Paroquet 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Spelchek? The idea behind Sequoia's statement was to the effect of "who the heck these people think they are that they tell you how to live in an area of your life which is none of their flipping business." I know Graceful, Grumpy Gus, Connor and JCLifer would agree wholeheartedly with what your position/rebuttal/retort came-off as; that things should be ruled as they see them, and you're gonna rot if you don't.
connor 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Ha!!! What a bunch of manure. First off regulating what make up of a marriage the government wishes to legally recognize is not telling people how to live. In fact it is telling people what type of relationship the state won't stick their nose into.
This "incident" is a good reason why alternative lifestyles should not fall under the cloak of "official" state recognized "marriage". These same sex "marriages" are simply a resource drain. How much money has been wasted just over this particular incident in legal fees, government employee wages yadda yadda.
Just more wasted money down the Liberal/Feminist money hole so they can pretend to have some kind of recognized whatever for a few short months then stick everyone else with the bill and the mess. It's a scam that has made a lot of people rich and given public funded jobs to a bunch more.
More taxes, more government, more money to entitle a few that should be left to do what they want on their own without our help and especially our money.
Liberals are the only one's on earth who can be ignored and yet still scream they are beng oppressed and told what to do.
And speaking of Graceful where has she been anyway?
Sequoia 4 months, 2 weeks ago
My idea is that "one man, one woman" laws bear the classic problems of liberal over-reach.
State marriage laws worked fine for decades. Then, recently, activist legislators passed laws prohibiting civil recognition of homosexual marriage. These activist laws weren't designed to solve any known problem, since there didn't seem to be any problem with marriages (other than the problems people create for themselves, of course) prior to these new activist laws. These laws didn't solve a problem, they just made a political point. The laws made their proponents feel good and moral and holy about themselves, but didn't make anyone's life better.
The government stepped in with some pointless legislation, and now the unintended consequences are greater than the "problem" the legislation was originally intended to solve.
My point being, people in the throes of movement conservative ideology succumb to the worst liberal impulses. It's how you know the movement is debauched, corrupt, off the rails and badly in need of reimagination.
Hopefully the federal and state Supreme Courts will make conservative decisions, uphold religious freedom and conservative principles, and strike down "one man, one woman" laws as violative of the equal protection clause.
connor 4 months, 2 weeks ago
NO. One man one woman is the only form of relationship or union that is mutually productive enough for both society and government to recognize. The rest of the "alternative lifestyles" are just a resource drain and not worth investing the time or energy into.
Don't take it personally though no one is going to stop you living your life the way you want. We just are not going to fund it.
Or even if the courts tell us we have to with that kind of return it won't last long.
JCLifer 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Amen. Religious freedom would require the government to get its nose out of saying who can or cannot marry who. If the government is going to provide support or not for one type of marriage, it needs to treat all folks who wish to marry the same ways.
JCLifer 4 months, 2 weeks ago
You totally do not know me, so please do not put words in my mouth either. For the record, I am supportive of marriage between any two persons who love each other. I see no reason for the government to deny the basic civil rights of marriage based on age, gender, race, religion, or disability. I am totally in favor of allowing homosexuals to marry.
I am also fine with religions to ban homosexual marriage, but not the government.
The right to marry any other human being is a basic civil right to me.
Now go bash away and continue to bash other posters. You will continue to focus on personalities instead of posting your opinion.
JCLifer 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Parasquat, people like you always stereotype others. All of your kind just never seem to learn.
Paroquet 4 months, 2 weeks ago
JCLifer? Don't diminish your arguments or explanations with namecalling, eh? I'm sorry if I lumped you into a category of social conservative in which you feel that you did not merit inclusion. My bad.
People like me? All of my kind? Never seem to learn? You mean those who might >gasp< err from time to time and learn something from the experience? How droll.
I mistakenly included you with certain forum contributors that portray themselves in the vein of radical rightists. Just as you may have mistakenly included me with whatever the heck your perception of "my kind" is. I don't have the benefit of understanding your perception of what constitutes "all of my kind". There are a lot of different "kinds" out there. Please consider for a moment that you may know me no better than I know you.
I appreciate the intelligent clarification of your position on the matter in the post you made five minutes prior to the one which I am responding.
JCLifer 4 months, 2 weeks ago
I am sorry. I just hate all those people who stereotype others. All of them are evil!!!
(sarcasim mode OFF)
Thanks for the appology. We are OK. Have a nice day.
spelchek 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Lesbians accepting a man's sperm??? Whaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhtttttt???? Hypocritical much? Adoption, yes. Conception, no. This story sets the "movement" back a few years.
Paroquet 4 months, 2 weeks ago
The key words to focus on are what/who is the "responsible party". In most cases that term is synonymous with "father" (or in this instance "donor"). In this case, it isn't. The existence of the contract and evidence of the two women keeping house together in addition to the declaration of intent provided by the craigslist ad calls very much into question "who is responsible party".
I'm not the judge. If I were, I'd have to rule that the State is going after the wrong person. The mother either voluntarily inseminated herself, or her partner aided/enabled by some fashion. This becomes especially relevant if currency or trade exchanged hands. In any event, it's not the law with respect of absolving financial responsibility concerning a doctor, it is as I have stated; Whom is the responsible party? Evidence all points to it not being the donor. If you buy a gun, buy the bullet, and shoot yourself, then that's your baby. [edit] sub "acquire" for "buy" if you like.
TickledPink 4 months, 2 weeks ago
What about a single, straight woman getting a sperm donor and having a baby? Should that be denied? What does it matter if she's straight or gay? These two women chose to have a baby then split up. Whoever the non custodial parent is, they should be the one paying child support, not the donor. This does however provide sufficient reason to go through a doctor instead of using the turkey baster method. Even a trip to an attorney with the indemnity paperwork would have been a better idea. Was this agreement written in any legal fashion at all?
connor 4 months, 2 weeks ago
OMG what an id-eeee-aht
Ya know the NBA has an orientation class for their new players that instructs them to never throw condoms in the trash or leave them where some gold digging woman and the government can pin DNA on him after they use a sample. There was even a case in Washington where the guy knew his girl friend was trying to get pregnant and he put horseradish in the used condom to catch her. He got sued for his efforts after the sting left her a tad upset. Of course her sneaking a purposeful deception was OK.
The point is guys and get this through your THICK SKULLS it doesn't matter how the woman got pregnant the feminist tyrants have determined all it takes is a fix on your DNA and no previous agreement is valid. Your money is fair game and no input on raising the child, visitation or fatherly rights will be up held. You will pay and PAY some more.
Even actual legal and medical sperm donors have been sued for child support and ended up paying. Don't let these feminist shills have your sperm period... In any manner. Some states will come back for alimony and support decades after the divorce is final and legal age limits have supposedly been met.
Agreements, contracts, annulments. None of that means squat because the women will ALWAYS have as many choices and "change their mind" clauses as the government and their voting power will give them.
sancho 4 months, 2 weeks ago
I'm glad Kansas is spending their resources on this issue and not Missouri. Pursuing a sperm donor for child support will cost so much time, work, money. In the meantime other families need help with child support, and won't get that help, because resources will only go so far.
muleman 4 months, 2 weeks ago
If he "boinked" it his. If he didnt physically have sex with her its not
asb 4 months, 2 weeks ago
So, when biologists are able to accomplish fertilization with two eggs, or two sperm, or one egg or sperm, or any vialble pluripotent cell; what will conservatives say? What government intervention in peoples' private lives will fundamentalists invent? The one egg process is already known throughout nature, and the two egg process is only a few years away for people. You might start practicing that conversation with your daughters or grand-daughters.
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID