Aa
Child support claim rankles sperm donor to lesbian couple
(Reuters) - A Kansas man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple so they could have a child said on Wednesday he is shocked the state is now trying to make him pay child support.
William Marotta, 46, donated sperm to Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauer under a written agreement that he would not be considered the father of the child nor liable for child support. A daughter, now 3, was born to Schreiner.
But in October, the state of Kansas filed a petition seeking to have Marotta declared the father of the child and financially responsible for her after the couple encountered money difficulties.
Marotta will ask the court in a hearing January 8 to dismiss the claim, which centers on a state law that the sperm must be donated through a licensed physician in order for the father to be free of any later financial obligations. Marotta gave a container of semen to the couple, who found him on Craigslist, instead of donating through a doctor or clinic.
The case is seen as having repercussions for other sperm donors. Sperm banks routinely provide sperm to people who want to conceive a child on the understanding that the donors are not responsible for the children.
Kansas is seeking child support from Marotta, including about $6,000 in medical expenses related to the child's birth, according to its petition.
"This was totally unexpected," Marotta said in a phone interview. "The very first thing that went through my mind was that no good deed goes unpunished."
The case has attracted national attention. Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said Wednesday "it is unfortunate and unfair" that Kansas is seeking money from a sperm donor.
"It certainly might have a negative effect on other men's willingness to help couples who need a donor, which would be harmful to everyone," Minter said.
"I also think it undermines everyone's respect for the law when you see it operate so arbitrarily."
Kansas officials are required under the law to determine the father of a child when someone seeks state benefits, said Angela de Rocha, spokeswoman for the Department for Children and Families. The couple was compelled to provide that information, which led to investigation of the sperm donation.
Marotta should be declared the father and subject to financial claims because he donated the sperm directly to the women and not through a physician, as required by Kansas law, the state's petition states.
Marotta said he's had virtually no contact with the child, but that he and Schreiner have remained cordial. He said she was pressured by the state to provide his name as the sperm donor.
"To me, ethics need to override rules," he said.
Lawyers for Marotta argue that he had no parental rights because of his agreement with the couple and cannot be held financially responsible.
They cite a 2007 case in which the Kansas Supreme Court ruled against a sperm donor seeking parental rights because he did not have any such agreement with the mother, lawyers for Marotta said.
"So now, we are flipping the argument around," Marotta attorney Ben Swinnen said Wednesday.
If the father had no legal parental rights in the 2007 case, Marotta should be declared to have no parental obligations in the current case, Swinnen said.
Marotta, a race car mechanic, responded to an ad on Craigslist from someone offering to pay $50 for sperm donations, but he made the donation for free. Marotta said he and his wife have no children of their own but have fostered a daughter. Marotta said he was simply trying to help a couple wanting a child.
SOURCE: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/03/us-usa-sperm-idUSBRE90201J20130103
William Marotta, 46, donated sperm to Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauer under a written agreement that he would not be considered the father of the child nor liable for child support. A daughter, now 3, was born to Schreiner.
But in October, the state of Kansas filed a petition seeking to have Marotta declared the father of the child and financially responsible for her after the couple encountered money difficulties.
Marotta will ask the court in a hearing January 8 to dismiss the claim, which centers on a state law that the sperm must be donated through a licensed physician in order for the father to be free of any later financial obligations. Marotta gave a container of semen to the couple, who found him on Craigslist, instead of donating through a doctor or clinic.
The case is seen as having repercussions for other sperm donors. Sperm banks routinely provide sperm to people who want to conceive a child on the understanding that the donors are not responsible for the children.
Kansas is seeking child support from Marotta, including about $6,000 in medical expenses related to the child's birth, according to its petition.
"This was totally unexpected," Marotta said in a phone interview. "The very first thing that went through my mind was that no good deed goes unpunished."
The case has attracted national attention. Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said Wednesday "it is unfortunate and unfair" that Kansas is seeking money from a sperm donor.
"It certainly might have a negative effect on other men's willingness to help couples who need a donor, which would be harmful to everyone," Minter said.
"I also think it undermines everyone's respect for the law when you see it operate so arbitrarily."
Kansas officials are required under the law to determine the father of a child when someone seeks state benefits, said Angela de Rocha, spokeswoman for the Department for Children and Families. The couple was compelled to provide that information, which led to investigation of the sperm donation.
Marotta should be declared the father and subject to financial claims because he donated the sperm directly to the women and not through a physician, as required by Kansas law, the state's petition states.
Marotta said he's had virtually no contact with the child, but that he and Schreiner have remained cordial. He said she was pressured by the state to provide his name as the sperm donor.
"To me, ethics need to override rules," he said.
Lawyers for Marotta argue that he had no parental rights because of his agreement with the couple and cannot be held financially responsible.
They cite a 2007 case in which the Kansas Supreme Court ruled against a sperm donor seeking parental rights because he did not have any such agreement with the mother, lawyers for Marotta said.
"So now, we are flipping the argument around," Marotta attorney Ben Swinnen said Wednesday.
If the father had no legal parental rights in the 2007 case, Marotta should be declared to have no parental obligations in the current case, Swinnen said.
Marotta, a race car mechanic, responded to an ad on Craigslist from someone offering to pay $50 for sperm donations, but he made the donation for free. Marotta said he and his wife have no children of their own but have fostered a daughter. Marotta said he was simply trying to help a couple wanting a child.
SOURCE: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/03/us-usa-sperm-idUSBRE90201J20130103
This man has been very very wronged. A donor is a donor, and with either egg or sperm donation, you cannot go back and claim that they are parents. Does this ever open a pandora's box. Can't you just envision the possibilites?
Going back to people who placed their child for adoption, and claiming support? Going back on embryo, egg or sperm donors and doing the same?
People that donate sperm, eggs or embryo's are allowing so many couples the miracle of having a child. This has so many negative implications.
Similar type things have happened with surrogate mothers'. It's just a reminder that you have to make sure to always always go through the appropriate legal channels. This not only hurts the donor, but it's not a very healthy situation for the child. Suddenly a father that didn't exist before?
Going back to people who placed their child for adoption, and claiming support? Going back on embryo, egg or sperm donors and doing the same?
People that donate sperm, eggs or embryo's are allowing so many couples the miracle of having a child. This has so many negative implications.
Similar type things have happened with surrogate mothers'. It's just a reminder that you have to make sure to always always go through the appropriate legal channels. This not only hurts the donor, but it's not a very healthy situation for the child. Suddenly a father that didn't exist before?
This makes me sick. Government going too far, courts going too far.
Copied this comment off Reuters... seems very fitting, and logical to me.
***
Whether verbal statements or written document, an agreement between persons constitutes a legal contract.
Three people agreed to certain conditions earlier which is no different than any of the myriads of ways we humans agree to certain things in the course of our lives.
It would appear that it is the two women who have violated their agreement with Marotta.
A change in the women’s circumstances does not void the original agreement made.
***
Whether verbal statements or written document, an agreement between persons constitutes a legal contract.
Three people agreed to certain conditions earlier which is no different than any of the myriads of ways we humans agree to certain things in the course of our lives.
It would appear that it is the two women who have violated their agreement with Marotta.
A change in the women’s circumstances does not void the original agreement made.
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.
