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 girl’s 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 attorney’s 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 hasn’t 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 Schreiner’s 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 William’s 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 didn’t 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 wouldn’t 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 Marotta’s 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?
Yeah, OK...
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?
Thank you.
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.
Idiot.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.