Sperm donor fighting order to pay child support
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.
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.
This guy should not have to pay. He was acting in good faith to help a couple, and believed that he would not be involved with the bringing up of the child as a result. The state should be going after the other mother. She was involved for three years plus pregnancy and that shows the intention to be a parent, so she she have to pay for the next years so the tax payers don't have to.
So we straight couples have one up on gays doe we? this means that both Mother and father have Equal responsibillities for rearing a child, while in the gay and leasbian community, One of the gays can ditch the kid..Yes I am using words to invoke an emotion. Now, If these were two men, what happens to the child then?
Â
they jsut cast the child aside? I hate to say it, but the laws of nature for bearing children and offspring states that mother and father must do there parts inseeing the success of their off spring.
Â
All I can say is that this loop hole can not be closed. DNA can be proven on who mother and father are. While Gays only DNA for one can be proven and tht is the one who bared the child(ren) .
I wonder how the child will feel when they learn that there one gay parent leaves them stranded and has no responsibility?
Â
Yup, Nice one to skirt responsibility..Moral Crash if I ever did see one.
Don't hate my remarks, hate the fact that the truth is staring you dead in the face.
Gays have an easy way out..they Didn't tell you about this in the legislation to legalize gay marriage now did they. I for see many kids becoming dependent on the state system as low income gays have kids and then have there partner leave..
Â
Welcome to the Moral Compass Crash.
Â
Â
 @lee986321 Actually its because they can't marry that this can happen. In the states that do allow gay marriage, if children are born as a result of the relationship both parents have legal responsibilities and financial responsibilities regardless of who's DNA it is. The lack of DNA and no legal arrangement called marriage makes this abandonment possible. However before I go, let me just say the market on deadbeat parents is not exclusive to gays. There are a lot of straight couples that have broken up and one of the parents avoids child support in one way or another. I.E. not working, going on S.S., and many more ways to avoid paying their share. It's humans and their lack of understanding of responsibility and commitment to children that create deadbeat parents, not their sexuality. I know this as I was raised and support by a man that was not my biological father and shared no DNA with me, because my biological sperm donor milked the system.
@lee986321 "One of the gays can ditch the kid" easy solution, allow gay marriage. Poof, your moral conundrum is solved. That way gays have just as difficult time dodging their moral responsiblity as other married couples, and trust me, that dodging takes place when you have a man and woman who are married and have kids together.
@Nat97305 Finally the voice of reason. Youv'e got it !
Â
Â
Â
Â
But it's okay for the "mexicans" to cross the border and have OUR foodstamp/cash money for their babies!!! HHhhmmm what is wrong with this picture???
I feel that the partner should have to pay the support not this man.
@Myownopinion! "I feel that the partner should have to pay the support not this man" Why? If a man starts dating a woman, and that woman gets pregnant by another man, the first one should be on the hook for child support? It's not his kid, yet you would make him pay?
"Mexicans" aren't allowed to work here legally so they work long hours in fields and don't get paid well, forcing them to use food stamps. On the other hand a lot of U.S citizens are too lazy to work those jobs and rather be on unemployment and living off the government like I assume you are since it bothers you.
@Mhmm. I am a single mom with a wonderful teenager boy. I work part time and am in the process of buying my first home with my own down payment. No help from anyone. Sorry to disappoint you... I just hate all the people that come over the border and won't/can't speak english and GET our foodstamps, welfare. They know they can get it for free so why wouldn't they cross the border. WE have to pay for them. Sucks!!!
You speak like it is so simple to cross the border, abandon their families, and risk their lives just to try to be able to provide their families with a better quality of life. I'd like to see what would happen to this country and it's economy if there were no "Mexicans" here because quite frankly, they contribute a lot. Not all of them are on welfare. But good for you and your son, focus on him instead of projecting so much hate. There's too much of it already in this world ma'am.
If the couple wanted the child,then later split up, then the partner should help with child support. To let the partner just take off with no further responsibilities is a step back for what the gay community keep telling the world. That they should have all the same treatment of a straight couple. So treat them like any other couple who produce a child, when one leaves they are still financially liable.
@Nat97305 If they could be married then maybe your argument would make sense. No, actually it wouldn't because straight couples can do the same thing. Let's say there is a man and a woman, who are not married, the woman gets pregnant by someone else, they eventually split... using your reasoning that man should be responsible for that child, a child that is not his.
 @Nat97305 So there is a loop hole in the law is there, I would vote discrimination on those who are traditional married couples Male to female, if gays can leave with there relationship and have no financial recourse for the child, then the who thing is a sham.
@lee986321 Great argument in favor of same sex marriage.
Yeah, well not all doctors have ethics and get it right either, one word......OCTOMOM(spelling?)
So if you want to avoid legal crap you have to pay $10,000-$25,000 to have a doctor do it. How stupid.
@Yourmothersir That, or a turkey baster and child support payments
What do I know anyway, to my way of thinking ,one of the perks of living a gay lifestyle is not having the heartache and expense of raising those ever so cute crumb crunchers.
@ryanmang, now that I disagree with people without a moral compass come in most every sexual preference.
Just further proof that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children. Think I read it in another article that these parasites have seven (7) other children. Disgusting and wrong on many fronts.
@ryanmang Which is proof? The fact that a gay couple split up and one left the child, or the fact that this is a single couple and so we must judge all gay couples by this? From the article, it appears that the state is suing for support. Is the lesbian mother suing?
Ethics in Law and medicine have been an interest of mine for some time now. Doesn't sperm die when it hits the air? If he is indeed the sperm donor, then why didn't the women honor the agreement that had with him? Â Gee I've heard of women telling the state that they were drunk, had a one night stand and didn't know who the father was. I agree you can't play both sides of the fence.
If I were him, I would start a custody battle, and give the couple hell until they backed off.
 @Portlander2012 the sate going after him because the Mother filed for assistance.
If it were only that simple.... It's the state that is sueing him! Can't your read?
 @OCJohn Can't YOUR spell? And it's the state that is SUING him.  Not SUEING!
@My2Cents @OCJohn You live a lonely life, huh?
Clear case of trying to play both sides of the game. The lesbian partner needs held accountable for child support, not the sperm donor.
@Playanekes....Iam a woman that was serving my country when I was sued in Kansas, M'kay Jackass?
Kansas has a history of praticing bad family law. I know first hand, I was sued there and I have never lived there a single day. I complained to the US attorney General,but the war had just started and they had bigger problems.
Â
Â
All that I can say is that he should have been more careful about what he did with his sperm!
If I were him I'd want a DNA test for sure, then file for full custody, and watch those little women skirm.
 @czullo "little women"? Are you a little man? The suit was brought against him by the state, not the "little women," but, we won't hold you accountable for reading the actual story, m'kay?
Â
What kind of human being would file for full custody just to punish "little women" who had nothing to do with the suit? People like you might be why there are lesbians in the first place.
This guy tries to make easy money by circumventing the system, and helps bring in another drain on society. He should be held partly responsible. I want my tax dollars back!Â
Th20: Moron.
 @Th20 Don't worry, your tax dollars didn't go to these people.
if it was me knowing that child is carrying half of my own DNA, Â I wouldn't argue for a second about making the payments reguardless of legal or financial reasons. Â A piece of paper isn't worth anything compared to the biological connection shared with the child.
Â
But I guess thats what a proper father would do in my own perfect world. Â Donor or not. Â A genetic connection is FAR deeper than any document. Â Who cares wether it's the state pursuing the donor, Â if I was in his shoes, I'd be happy to help.
Â
Â
Some people..... Â I could never write off my own flesh and blood no matter what the circumstance. Â I think people should reorganize their priorities. Â Money isn't as important as a child right? Â If not, tell me a darn good reason why.
@Silver Surfer The bond men share with children develop in large due to physical contact. It's hard to accept a child as yours when you never held them, or watched them grow. Biological conditioning is an instinct, meant to preserve, not the whole picture.
 @Silver Surfer I hear your argument and while I agree about the bond of flesh and blood and how that connects with responsibility, I think persons who are OK donating their sperm don't carry those sentiments over to the child from that donation.Â
Â
Mind you, I understand without donors many families would be without that precious child they are so happy to have. Which brings us straight-away back to that sense of responsibility that many donors simply do not share with your thoughts. But it sure would be nice if our society had a bit more desires to "help out" like you mentioned.Â
This is as ridiculous as bars being responsible when people drink and drive and hurt/kill someone. They would have found the donor somewhere else if not from him.
Are you kidding me, lesbian couple? Come on - he signed a legally binding contract. You both got the child you wanted and presumably at the sign you agree to the legal terms of your contract you two did not want anything to do with Mr. Sperm Donor - at all.Â
Â
I am dumbfounded and sickened by this lesbian couple abusing this well intentioned man. Shamelss oppotunists. SHAMEFUL.Â
Â
The child should be placed in state custody. Not left in the care of either lesbian parent - who clearly don't care about the child - just the money, money, money of a man who bears no legal responsibility for any of it.Â
Â
 @englishdaisy You should actually read the story before preaching, there, flap-jaw. The suit is being brought against him by the State of Kansas, not the women.
@englishdaisy it's a little disturbing to see so many people comment on this story who have obviously not read it. the lesbian couple is not going after this man. the state of kansas is trying to force this man to pay child support because one of the women filed for public assistance. because the insemination was not performed by a doctor, kansas law allows them to go after the donor. the couple is on the side of the donor.
Why not go after the other half of the couple....
 @whatever  @flyingtime Irony of ironies, right there.
 @flyingtimeÂ
Â
Bingo !!  Just as if it were a 'traditional couple'.
Â
The trouble is that "parent" isn't defined under Kansas Law.  (Neither is couple.)   http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_38/Article_22/
Â
"Custodian" however is.    Custodians are responsible for the welfare of the child.    Even though he was never a physical custodian, he is a natural custodian.    And they include "natural custodian" as responsible.
@flyingtime that sounds like a good way to go..... but kansas does not recognize gay marriage
 @flyingtime VERY good point!
Counter Sue
 @Michael McWilliams Whom should he counter-sue? The child's mother isn't suing him, it's the state, and it seems unlikely a counter-suit would be useful.