Skip to comments.Court case query: Is Topeka man a sperm donor or father? State wants Craigslist donor to pay
Posted on 12/30/2012 5:39:04 AM PST by billorites
Topekan William Marotta sought only to become a sperm donor but now the state of Kansas is trying to have him declared a father.
Nearly four years ago, Marotta donated sperm in a plastic cup to a lesbian couple after responding to an ad they had placed on Craigslist.
Marotta and the women, Topekans Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, signed an agreement holding him harmless for support of the child, a daughter Schreiner bore after being artificially inseminated.
But the Kansas Department for Children and Families is now trying to have Marotta declared the 3-year-old girls father and forced to pay child support. The case is scheduled for a Jan. 8 hearing in Shawnee County District Court.
Hannah Schroller, the attorney defending Marotta, said the case has intriguing social and reproductive rights implications.
She said Marotta, a mechanic who has taken care of foster children with his wife, Kimberly, answered a Craigslist ad placed by Bauer and Schreiner seeking a sperm donor in March 2009.
In an email to Marotta that is part of court records, Bauer described herself and Schreiner as a financially stable lesbian couple, with Bauer working outside the home and Schreiner being a stay-at-home mom with their other children.
We are foster and adoptive parents and now we desire to share a pregnancy and birth together, Bauer wrote.
Marotta responded in an email that he was 43 years old, 6 feet 1 inches tall and weighed 205 pounds, reasonably fit and in good health, with blond hair and blue eyes.
Marotta, Bauer and Schreiner each signed an agreement saying he would be paid $50 per semen donation, with the arrangement including a clear understanding that he would have no parental rights whatsoever with the child or children.
The agreement also called for Bauer and Schreiner to hold Marotta harmless for any child support payments demanded of him by any other person or entity, public or private, including any district attorneys office or other state or county agency, regardless of the circumstances or said demand.
Schroller said that after consulting with his wife, Marotta decided to donate free of charge rather than taking the $50.
She said Marotta subsequently received periodic email updates on the child after her birth but hasnt had much contact with Schreiner and Bauer. The Topeka Capital-Journal was unable to reach the women Friday.
On Oct. 3, attorney Mark McMillan filed a petition on behalf of the Department of Children and Families seeking a ruling that Marotta is the father of Schreiners child and owes a duty to support her. It said the department provided cash assistance totaling $189 for the girl for July through September 2012 and had paid medical expenses totaling $5,884.96.
Schroller, an attorney with Topeka-based Swinnen & Associates, said the state became involved after the mother fell on hard times and applied for financial assistance through the state.
She said of Schreiner: My understanding is that after being pressed on paternity of the child, she gave them Williams name as a sperm donor. The state then filed this suit to determine paternity.
Angela de Rocha, spokeswoman for the Department for Children and Families, said Friday that Kansas law prevented her from commenting on the case.
On Oct. 24, Schroller filed a motion to dismiss the case.
McMillan responded in a motion filed Nov. 1 that the hold harmless agreement between Marotta, Bauer and Schreiner was moot because it didnt meet the primary requirement of Kansas statute 23-2208(f) that Schreiner have a licensed physician perform the artificial insemination.
Marotta signed an affidavit in September saying he had no reason to believe a medical professional wouldnt carry out the artificial insemination using the semen specimen he provided.
Schroller replied in a court document filed Dec. 20 that her case was consistent with In Re K.M.H., a 2007 case in which the Kansas Supreme Court denied parental rights to a man who sought them after providing a sperm donation under similar circumstances. A licensed physician performed the insemination in the 2007 case, in which the donor was Topekan Daryl Hendrix, but no physicians apparently were involved in Marottas case.
Still, Schroller wrote that Marotta took the same actions as the man in the 2007 case did, and he like that man should be considered a sperm donor, not a father.
She stressed that sperm banks regularly ship sperm donations for the intended purpose of artificial insemination within the United States and abroad to both residential and medical facility addresses.
Schroller wrote: If, as the petitioner alleges, the use of a licensed physician is a primary requirement of K.S.A. 23-2208(f), then any woman in Kansas could have sperm donations shipped to her house, inseminate herself without a licensed physician and seek out the donor for financial support because her actions made him a father, not a sperm donor. This goes against the very purpose of the statute to protect sperm donors as well as birth mothers.
I bought a canoe off of Craiglist once. Smooth transaction. Almost bought a drum kit.
Sold my Dakota (pickup, not state or C-47 as Brit plane). Got a great price. From Craig’s list. Usually wear sidearm when making Craigslist deals though.
Sperm? Not for sale. And the wife sez I can’t donate any either.
Ross Perot so aptly said, "If a man's wife can't trust him, how am I going to trust him?" or something to that effect. It is pure logic what has been stated above, but an immoral leftist will deny it every time. Liberal lefty philosophy kills.
That's where he messed up. Should have had a licensed physician inseminate her. Then, the doctor could have paid the child support. Wait, I'm getting confused....oh, yes, artificial. But, wait, if you're having sex with a lesbian, isn't that "artificial" on it's face? I am so perplexed.
Ban semen cups.
People unable to have natural sex are unable to have natural affection either. It follows that they are also incapable of having natural loyalties or abiding by natural contracts. They make up the rules as they go along and always to their advantage.
A society needs to insist that any man who fathers a child, by any means, is liable for the support of that child. The covenant is between the child and the father, not the father and the mother.
Seriously...if one is having sexual relations with a lesbian, is it real sex, or artificial sex? She obviously doesn't enjoy heterosexual coitus, so is it really sex, or just pretend? If then it is artificial by nature, could he not be still considered to be the father because it can't be proved that he didn't donate directly to her instead of through the cup?
If she claims he made a direct, artificial donation to her, then she could have him pay child support. I should have been a lawyer.
For a brief second I thought the Topeka law firm was ‘Swimmin and Associates’, and I thought ‘perfect!’.
It’s not the first time for crazy coincidences in a posted article where the name fit the situation.
Once the state has provided financial assistance for the child in any way, this is going to happen. Once the women couldn’t provide for the child, the agreement became worthless because they weren’t living up to their side of it. A friend’s ex had been receiving direct child support payments from him according to the court order. She got food stamps for a couple of months and that put him “into the system”. That’s how they do it. The man was foolish to ever get involved in this.
Um, so this goes on with every mother and their sperm donors? No matter the method of how the donation is planted? Welfare, EBT, WIC, Section-8,SCHIP etc. spending is extremely low in this country because the Dept of Children and Families go after all the absentee fathers?
Okay, we've experienced it. Ew, this is expensive! Let's get some tax-payer money...
Though leftists are convinced marriage is just a social contrivance, so they despise it, the truth is that socially enforced marriage provides enormous benefits beyond just reproduction.
It gives men greater assurance that the children are his. It gives the woman a promise that the man will help her raise her children. And the benefits to the children are huge, in that they are raised on a “success” track, instead of a “survival” track, like the children with a single parent.
This being said, leftists have long tried to destroy marriage, and are contemptuous of it. And they have had enough success in damaging it, that the secular law has had to intervene to artificially create the biological advantages of marriage.
Two sides of this are marriage and child support, along with shared custody. However the third side, providing benefits to the father, is still missing in the law.
Eventually, this will mean that when a child is born, the hospital will do a DNA test of the umbilical cord to determine the DNA of the child, mother and father. And right now, in many places, women are being asked to name the father.
If the father is known, they will be given a six month period in which to take a DNA test that will certify that they either are, or are not the father. If they are, then they owe support, unless the mother’s “man” offers support. If they are not the father, they may still choose to provide support, but if they do not, they must cease contact with both the mother and the child for good, to avoid having to provide support.
If the woman refuses to identify the father, then the umbilical cord sample will be retained by the hospital, for any future claims of paternity, or so that the state may recover money paid in child support once the father is discovered.
As such, you can easily see the ridiculous extremes the law has to go to, to “sort of” replace the advantages of socially enforced marriage.
Both he and the women involved are theives.
They have stolen something very precious from the little girl. When she grows up, it is most likely she will let them know in no uncertain terms what they have done to her.
Still, at least she will know the identity of her father, which is more than most children conceived by sperm donation and closed adoptions.
If I were on a jury that’s how I would see it. The child never agreed to relinquish a relationship with his father or to forgo the fathers obligations. Men know they’re donating sperm for the purpose of reproduction. They want children without responsibility for them. I don’t buy it.
I hope they hold this guy accountable and do the same for all other guys in these situations. The only way to stop these people from “playing God” is to make it not worth their while.
1. Has a DNA test been performed? No? Dumb daddy just got dumber.
2. did a lawyer draw up the contract and file it with the court? No? Dumb mommies.
3. In our state, if you get benefits (EBT, health ins., etc) we’re gonna find the baby daddy, genetic test him and make him pay. Even tho folks are on welfare, the state wants someone to help foot the bill...and we want dad to be the one.
4. Don’t ever try this at home! If they’d gone thru a sperm donor bank, all the legalities would have been taken care of. Legally.
5. Most important, how’s the kid?
But it goes far beyond financial support. Anyone who co-creates a child has a common identity with that child and robbing said child of that identity should be a crime.
Beyond that, a co-creator owes the child more than money. Creating a child is a sacred bond. Breaking that bond is an abominable act committed against the child. (This goes for both co-creators).
Notice in the story and the laws, there is no mention of the child’s rights in any sense. This stems from our societal belief of childern having no value. They are disposable.
actions have consequences. . . . .
it is obvious this man did not seek God before making this choice, or, if he did, he didn’t listen.
Prayers for the child.
Perhaps, but you're letting the nanny-welfare-state completely off the hook as if it were some natural force we have no control over. The decision is outrageous.
Two adults entered into a contract [no matter how distasteful you may find it] and the state has now broken that contract because of a technicality.
instead of trying to outlaw guns, maybe we should be outlawing turkey basters
I believe in Indiana some years back that a court there ordered a sperm donor to by child support
Beautiful example of the complications in this area of law. The lesbian couple should have adopted the baby, terminating the parental relationship between the donor and the infant.
“Schroller, an attorney with Topeka-based Swinnen & Associates, said the state became involved after the mother fell on hard times and applied for financial assistance through the state.”
Kansas domestic lawyer here. I’ve been involved in three cases regarding lesbian couples. What is not said but is obvious is that the “mother” who was going out in the workforce and making the money, dumped her girlfriend. She had no financial obligation towards the child or the child’s mother. Other children are mentioned, fostered and adopted. It is legal in Kansas for a single person to adopt so there are probably one or two special needs kids. Those are easy for the state to support but then there’s the little 3 year old. Mom is told that she can get more money if she will simply give up the name of the biological father. She does and the state pursues him. Interesting case. I hope that the sperm donor goes after the other party in this case whom I hope signed that contract. She probably does have some money and that indemnification clause should require her to pay the sperm donor.
The loser in all this is the little girl who no doubt bonded to both the adults in her life and now is in a home with a single mother, a couple of troubled adopted kids, and no father. She’s lost the other “mom” and is no doubt confused by the whole thing. Lots of damage here and yes, the sperm donor in trying to do a good thing, created chaos. Good intentions and all.
One other thing. It’s clearly the law in Kansas and I assume in most places that the parents cannot contract to deny their child financial support. The support is the right of the child and he/she cannot contract it away. The narrow exception is the statute regarding sperm donors. Because it’s an exception, it will be narrowly interpreted. I predict that unless the sperm donor can get the other “mother” to pay him back, he’s looking at supporting the child and paying the medical expenses until she’s 18.
Make sperm donor “dads” pay.
It’s a cruel joke to breed pet children with no fathers.
I disagree. It traditionally had been the case that only children conceived in wedlock were due support. It was a big incentive for women insist on marriage. Then in the early 1970's, the Supreme Court invalidated those state illegitimacy laws.
This is one factor that helped the downward slide that started in the 1960's and 70's.
And if a husband and wife were unable to conceive and a sperm donor was used, then do you feel the biological father is responsible?
Only men with no assets or garnishable income would risk impregnating a women who is, or might go on, welfare. At least the ones with any sense.
Dumbassed idiots all around. After he j’o in a cup, he had no control what happened to it.
I too, like Cl. I’ve made some good sells and buys there.
Who can tell? After a 12 pack all women look alike........
I completely agree. I also agree with the posters who say this guy is an idiot. He “donated” his sperm on an impulse as a result of liberal feel good ideology. Oh the poor lesbians deserve to have children and I can help. At the very least he should have hired a lawyer who would have told him his potential financial liability.
Just wondering if him and his wife have any children of their own. Perhaps the wife is a liberal feminist who refuses to have children with him and he had a desire to have a child even if he couldn’t care for him/her.
Regardless he deserves whatever consequences come of this mess.
And everybody should have had lawyers. Oh and you can’t practice law for yourself competently even though you are “allowed” to just to save money.
believe you me, if the state spends one thin dime on a kid, they are looking for the fathers. Usually when the mom won’t cough up the name it is because it is a case of incest. And yeah, once the dad is id’d, he is paying back the state, that is, if he has any kind of a job.
Now that the state has put out money for the care of the child, it is going to get it back from somebody. If this guy was too stupid to have this all settled and legally binding upfront - 6 ways from Sunday - he’s an idiot. Yeah, it’s nanny-state crap, I agree, but he should have known that from the beginning. He’s fool enough to take the word of these women he met on Craig’s List and risk the financial well-being of his wife and family on that? That’s “felony stupid”.
6. Should the “Father” sue the State and Lessies for his rights to parenting this child(even though he’s not much)?
If the State considers him a “Father” then he has rights also!
If the” 2-Mothers” are indigent then the “Father” might be able to afford a better home?
Get the child into a better environment!
3. In our state, if you get benefits (EBT, health ins., etc) were gonna find the baby daddy, genetic test him and make him pay.
There have been many cases where an ex husband has been stuck with child support for someone else’s kid (wife cheated). Even proof through DNA testing didn’t get them off the hook.
Before I returned to Christianity (well, I strayed pretty badly but it didn’t ever really leave me), I was friendly with a lesbian couple. They wanted to have children and asked me as a friend to be their donor.
Where I was mentally and morally at the time, that was sort of flattering, stange as it sounds to me today. I hadn’t fathered any children and the thought was sort of nice. I’d be involved as much or as little as I wanted to be, they said, but they wanted a contract regarding custody and parental rights, the child would be legally theirs.
There were niggling pangs of conscience that continued to grow, but what really put the while notion on the wrong foot was the contract. It brought to mind the legal difficulties so many friends of mine had had over the years, due to divorce, custody and child support. So, I got a copy of their proposed contract and made an appointment with an attorney.
The first words out of his mouth were, don’t do it. All moral considerations aside, you’re going to be on the hook just as surely as any other paternity case, ultimately. The contract wasn’t worth the paper it was written upon in a court of law dealing with the welfare of the child, such couples are rarely of any duration and the custodial lesbian “partner” WILL be coming after you. The court will favor the child’s benefit, no question, no consideration of any other agreements.
So, I didn’t do it. In hindsight, I’d have been wracked by guilt, being responsible for bringing a child into such an environment. I do still wonder about what might have been, though. It’s a very strange situation.
exactly, one bad idea leads to the next one
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
when she grows up it’ll be too late
Ask Chastity Bono when the optimal age to be introduced into lesbianism is? For her nanny it was 11.... same age that NYC mandates the pro-sex sex-ed course..... coincidence?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
He should have seen a lawyer...or have the lesbians pay for his legal consultation. The lawyer would have told him no!!!
Agree.....as was his wife, and the two lesbians.
"Neither a borrower nor a lender be; For loan oft loses both itself and friend, and borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry."
Then I would have to disagree. A straight, infertile couple of good character is better than dykes or homos raising kids.
He should have put a label on the Container, intended only for use as a Topical Ointment or Energy Drink.
True. In which case they can formally adopt the child and the problem will be solved. But this idea that you're going to go spreading your seed around and because things weren't done in the natural way you get off responsibility scot-free doesn't jibe with my notions of social rectitude.