Aa
Sperm donor must pay child support
Judge rules Kansas sperm donor must pay child support
TOPEKA, Kan. – 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.
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.’’
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/01/23/judge-rules-kan-sperm-donor-owes-child-support/?intcmp=latestnews
TOPEKA, Kan. – 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.
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.’’
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/01/23/judge-rules-kan-sperm-donor-owes-child-support/?intcmp=latestnews
Oh, just wanted to say as well that I feel for any child whose needs are not being met. I really do. I wonder how the couple got in the situation they are in and if there were signs that they could not afford to care for a child prior to advertising for sperm. I picture some dumb guy who thinks "cool". He deposits his sperm and thinks he's done with it which by the term sperm donor . . . that is what that situation is supposed to be. I don't necessarily feel bad for this guy or want to begrudge this child any money due them . . . but I see this as a state wanting to recoup its money no matter the complexities involved and looking for how to not pay for this kid and also a situation that will hurt couples in the future from finding available sperm donation. This is a risk to 'giving'.
I mean, if a couple adopts a child through an adoption agency---- and then hit upon hard times, do they then go back to the birth mother who gave them up for adoption for money? And if she doesn't have any, figure out who the baby daddy is? Is it not the responsibility of the adoptive parents? This doesn't seem much different to me than that.
I mean, if a couple adopts a child through an adoption agency---- and then hit upon hard times, do they then go back to the birth mother who gave them up for adoption for money? And if she doesn't have any, figure out who the baby daddy is? Is it not the responsibility of the adoptive parents? This doesn't seem much different to me than that.
Who really thinks this is to benefit the child as part of it is repaying what the state had already spent? I think the state is doing it to benefit themselves --- it's a cost saving move.
And that's the crux of it, isn't it.
I used to "donate" when I was in college, to make side-$$$. I was broke as a joke, as a freshman, and all I had to do was not drink or engage in sexual intercourse in the 5 days prior to my donation. Easy-peasy, for the $50 it net'd me!
I think I "gave" at least 10 times, over the course of my freshman year.
I can't WAIT for all the people that got mine, to hunt me down and try to squeeze child support outta me!!!
Awesome.
I think I "gave" at least 10 times, over the course of my freshman year.
I can't WAIT for all the people that got mine, to hunt me down and try to squeeze child support outta me!!!
Awesome.
I actually did get what you were saying. The couple has financial issues and must have given the state the information though. I don't think the state should do this to the man to recoup assistance they had to give to the couple. There are lots of couples that enter into parenthood unprepared financially (or things happen along the way). I don't feel a sperm donor should be responsible if it was set up as 'just that'. Just my opinion. I think it will curtail future donations of this kind.
I was pointing out that the "couple" did not initiate this action - the State did.
And, the theory is that the right to support belongs to the child.
I am not necessarily in agreement with the court but I think it is helpful to understand the facts.
And, the theory is that the right to support belongs to the child.
I am not necessarily in agreement with the court but I think it is helpful to understand the facts.
The child does deserve support from his/her parents not some stranger who just happened to donate sperm.
Well, the parents are the two women, correct?
Again, maybe he should try to obtain some kind of custody agreement if he is now an acting parent rather than the purchased sperm he intended this agreement to be.
What if I donated an egg (well, back in the day when I had some good ones) to a couple in good faith that THEY were making the right choice for themselves to have a child. Years later, I'm contacted to pay child support? That seems crazy to me and this would prevent people from helping out others (even for money) in fertility situations.
I don't want to see a child go without but don't feel a sperm donor is the parent. The ladies who bought his sperm are.
Again, maybe he should try to obtain some kind of custody agreement if he is now an acting parent rather than the purchased sperm he intended this agreement to be.
What if I donated an egg (well, back in the day when I had some good ones) to a couple in good faith that THEY were making the right choice for themselves to have a child. Years later, I'm contacted to pay child support? That seems crazy to me and this would prevent people from helping out others (even for money) in fertility situations.
I don't want to see a child go without but don't feel a sperm donor is the parent. The ladies who bought his sperm are.
I do think it is a little unfair of the couple to solicit for sperm in the paper, get one of the women pregnant and then decide they can't afford the child so sue for child support.
"....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...."
"The right for support belongs to the child, not the parents, the filing says...."
"....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...."
"The right for support belongs to the child, not the parents, the filing says...."
also, (ha, sorry . . . YES, there are more deep thoughts from me (joke)) as this case gets publicity, men may be less willing to donate sperm to either same sex couples or otherwise and you may see the availability go down. Not this couple's problem as they already have their kid . . . but big picture, this could complicate things for couples in need of donor sperm.
It's a little whacky. The idea of a couple advertising in the paper for sperm is a little whacky to begin with. That probably left things open to something like this. There were better ways to getting that sperm. Sadly, the donor did this to himself. If he wanted to donate, he should have gone to a fertility clinic/sperm bank and he'd have been protected.
I do think it is a little unfair of the couple to solicit for sperm in the paper, get one of the women pregnant and then decide they can't afford the child so sue for child support.
anyway, I hope said sperm donor sues for partial custody then.
I do think it is a little unfair of the couple to solicit for sperm in the paper, get one of the women pregnant and then decide they can't afford the child so sue for child support.
anyway, I hope said sperm donor sues for partial custody then.
"....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...."
"The right for support belongs to the child, not the parents, the filing says...."
"The right for support belongs to the child, not the parents, the filing says...."
The mother or whoever should not be trying to get child support in this case.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
