Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

KS: Sperm donor ordered by state to pay child support (to separated lesbian couple on assistance)
Mercury News ^ | 1/2/13 | Associated Press

Posted on 01/02/2013 11:10:42 AM PST by NormsRevenge

TOPEKA, Kan. -- A sperm donor in Kansas is fighting a state effort to force him to pay child support for a child conceived through artificial insemination by a lesbian couple.

William Marotta, 46, of Topeka said he is "a little scared about where this is going to go, primarily for financial reasons," The Topeka Capital-Journal (http://bit.ly/132b7Ji) reported Monday.

When he donated sperm to Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner in 2009, Marotta relinquished all parental rights, as well as financial responsibility for the child. When Bauer and Schreiner filed for state assistance this year, the state demanded the donor's name so it could collect child support for the girl, now 3. Bauer and Schreiner broke up in 2010 but co-parent their eight children, who range in age from 3 months to 25 years.

(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; US: Kansas; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: childsupport; contractlaw; dcfcriminals; kansas; lesbiancouple; parentlarights; samesexadoption; savethemales; spermdonor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last
looks like societal 'advancement' has costs and unintended consequences sometimes. a lesson to be learned in here somewhere.
1 posted on 01/02/2013 11:10:50 AM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Nelson

Cynical laugh

Ha, ha


2 posted on 01/02/2013 11:15:35 AM PST by Cletus.D.Yokel (Bread and Circuses; Everyone to the Coliseum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Idiots will never learn.


3 posted on 01/02/2013 11:15:35 AM PST by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Are there any sperm doners here? What would motivate you to do that?


4 posted on 01/02/2013 11:16:08 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

“papers please”


5 posted on 01/02/2013 11:16:51 AM PST by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Good way to end sperm donation to gay couples.

SnakeDoc


6 posted on 01/02/2013 11:16:53 AM PST by SnakeDoctor (Texas survived one Obama term, and we'll survive another. The rest of you are screwed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Don’t do stupid things.


7 posted on 01/02/2013 11:20:21 AM PST by Greystoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

OK, so it’s only fair that the sperm donors who spawned the current crop of welfare tykes be required to pay up as well! Sounds like a plan, doesn’t it?


8 posted on 01/02/2013 11:20:47 AM PST by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Bwahahahahaha!!!

Who here could not see this crap coming? Anyone? Please, ANYONE??

FMCDH(BITS)

9 posted on 01/02/2013 11:23:38 AM PST by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

Ohh, what a tangled web we weave when at first ....


10 posted on 01/02/2013 11:24:01 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

They make ruling after ruling against them but no income means nothing to garnish.


11 posted on 01/02/2013 11:24:44 AM PST by wiggen (The teacher card. When the racism card just won't work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Ha, Ha!

Teach Your Children Well:

David Crosby Has Mixed Feelings About Donating Sperm Again

"Rocker David Crosby was disappointed when he learned Melissa Etheridge and her lesbian lover Julie Cypher were splitting up because he donated sperm to help them conceive two children. Crosby wanted to help his friends become parents, and the couple's son Beckett was born in 1998, followed by daughter Bailey in 2000.

He famously posed with Etheridge, Cypher and their children for a Rolling Stone cover, where the world discovered Crosby's role in the conception. To his dismay, Etheridge and Cypher decided to split up seven months later and now share custody of the two children. Cypher is married to Matthew Hale while Etheridge is married to actress Tammy Lynn Michaels, who recently gave birth to twins using an anonymous sperm donor.

12 posted on 01/02/2013 11:26:19 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
When he donated sperm to Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner in 2009, Marotta relinquished all parental rights, as well as financial responsibility for the child. When Bauer and Schreiner filed for state assistance this year, the state demanded the donor's name so it could collect child support for the girl...

Was there a contract?

Does this mean that the "state" can summarily decide which contracts it wishes to honor, and which contracts it can ignore to suit its needs at the moment?

-PJ

13 posted on 01/02/2013 11:29:52 AM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

There’s an old army saying . . .


14 posted on 01/02/2013 11:33:49 AM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Fatherhood is determined via biology. What, you hate science?


15 posted on 01/02/2013 11:34:01 AM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
Good way to end sperm donation to gay couples.

This could encourage some sperm donors to want to make direct deposits. -tom

16 posted on 01/02/2013 11:40:38 AM PST by Capt. Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

The State wants money and doesn’t care who pays as long as SOMEONE pays. There have been instances where men have been forced to pay child support for children their wives or girlfriends conceived with other men!


17 posted on 01/02/2013 11:45:37 AM PST by Little Ray (Waiting for the return of the Gods of the Copybook Headings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Tom

No man wants to direct deposit an actual lesbian. They never look like ‘experimenting’ slumber-party cheerleaders you’re imagining.

SnakeDoc


18 posted on 01/02/2013 11:45:44 AM PST by SnakeDoctor (Come and take it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Help a gay couple.

Get screwed over.


19 posted on 01/02/2013 11:47:22 AM PST by Gasshog (Welcome to the United States of Stupidos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

I believe any contract they created was between the three “adults” involved. When the one adult who kept the child decided the citizens of the state needed to pay for the child’s upbringing, the state’s rules for providing assistance came into play.

The state’s citizens were never consulted when they made their original arrangement. If they truly wanted to keep their little private arrangement, the two mommies should be providing for the child not the citizens of the state.


20 posted on 01/02/2013 11:47:32 AM PST by Waryone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Colonial America established Bastardy Courts in order to determine the paternity of bastard children. Without a father, these children became wards of the state and the state was determined to ensure that the taxpayers would not be unnecessarily burdened by providing support (where has that notion gone?). Mothers of these children were dragged in front of the court and compelled to name the father. The fathers were then held liable for support.

The same principle is at play here. The interested parties are the child and the state. The state is claiming that they did not agree to the arrangement and therefore can still come after the father.

Moral of the story: NEVER, NEVER agree to be a sperm donor. You’ll be sorry.


21 posted on 01/02/2013 11:53:18 AM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Caveat Emptor has been changed.

Now it is Caveat Ejaculator.


22 posted on 01/02/2013 11:54:04 AM PST by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
Good way to end sperm donation to gay couples.

People don't operate or think like that.

Bad things always happen to other people, and so, there will always be those who will take their chances, especially when it's to advance an agenda.
23 posted on 01/02/2013 11:58:24 AM PST by adorno (Y)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Does this mean that the "state" can summarily decide which contracts it wishes to honor, and which contracts it can ignore to suit its needs at the moment?

It's a grey area when it comes to sperm donors, but with normal biological parents (married or unmarried), any contract between them as to child support is unenforceable because the unborn child was not a party to the contract and therefore didn't give up his or her right to support.

Even aside from that issue, every state has laws that contracts "against public policy" are unenforceable.

24 posted on 01/02/2013 12:05:39 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: All

cild support belongs to the CHILD.

He had sex with a a woman. He is the father/ She is the mother.

The state has established one mother one father.


25 posted on 01/02/2013 12:06:07 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; Political Junkie Too
Ah, the devil is in the details:

The state contends the agreement between Marotta and the women is not valid because Kansas law requires a licensed physician to perform artificial insemination.

"Speaking generally, all individuals who apply for taxpayer-funded benefits through DCF are asked to cooperate with child support enforcement efforts," Angela de Rocha, a spokeswoman for the Kansas Department for Children and Families, said in a statement. "If a sperm donor makes his contribution through a licensed physician and a child is conceived, the donor is held harmless under state statue. In cases where the parties do not go through a physician or a clinic, there remains the question of who actually is the father of a child or children.

26 posted on 01/02/2013 12:09:55 PM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

This guy has a wife,but no kids, They didn’t go to a Docotr for the insemination. Maybe he did make a direct deposit.

If he has topoay that’s tough kitty, Why shouldthe taxpayers have to pay and him not.

Why would you use your sperm to knock up a homo when your own wife has no children.


27 posted on 01/02/2013 12:15:02 PM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

I would like to see the gay ex-lover forced to pay

After all she agreed to adopt and support the child AND got the father to sign away paternal rights and financial responsibilities. She should be made to assume them then if thats what she wanted.


28 posted on 01/02/2013 12:15:58 PM PST by Mr. K (There are lies, dammed lies, statistics, and democrap talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Waryone
The state’s citizens were never consulted when they made their original arrangement. If they truly wanted to keep their little private arrangement, the two mommies should be providing for the child not the citizens of the state.

Sounds about right to me...

Regards,
GtG

29 posted on 01/02/2013 12:20:05 PM PST by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Why indeed. But the fact remains everyone’s handwringing about sperm donation, when they are in no danger (at least in KS) if they follow State procedures...artificial insemination by a licensed physician...instead of whatever (I don’t want to know) went on here.

The law provides for exactly what the man wants now (no financial responsibility for the result of his “donation”), but he simply did not follow that procedure. Which should be in the opening paragraph of any news story about this.


30 posted on 01/02/2013 12:21:05 PM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson

Fatherhood is determined by biology and law. In some states your are legally the father of any children your wife has while you are married to her. Even if the mother divorces you later the father child is still yours.


31 posted on 01/02/2013 12:24:37 PM PST by FreedomNotSafety
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gandalf_The_Gray; P-Marlowe; wagglebee; narses; wmfights

It’s a good thing for the FATHER (alias: sperm donor) to be required by law to support his own child.

This underscores a couple of conservative principles:

1. Homosexual couples are not procreative. This is the heart and soul of one major argument against homosexual marriage.

2. Ultimate Responsibility for one’s own procreative activity despite odd schemes and agreements to the contrary.

3. Unnatural marriage deprives a child of a role model whether male or female.


32 posted on 01/02/2013 12:26:08 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson

... the child is still yours.


33 posted on 01/02/2013 12:28:11 PM PST by FreedomNotSafety
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: xzins

You left one out:

Lesbian couples cannot be “parents” to the full extent of the term because a father is required.


34 posted on 01/02/2013 12:33:14 PM PST by Salvavida (The restoration of the U.S.A. starts with filling the pews at every Bible-believing church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Salvavida

I agree with you.

My point 3 is similar to what you’re saying, but yours better states that particular issue.


35 posted on 01/02/2013 12:38:07 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Note to self - Don’t “donate” to couples on craig’s list.


36 posted on 01/02/2013 12:48:38 PM PST by SengirV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Seems like this would set a precedent of potentially having to identify sperm donors even for heterosexual couples with fertility issues, if they apply for public aid, leaving the sperm donor vulnerable.


37 posted on 01/02/2013 1:03:43 PM PST by NEMDF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Yes, I’m inclined to agree. I considered donating back when I was in law school. Why not make some extra money, I thought, and possibly help a truly sympathetic infertile couple? And after all, these papers say I’m not legally on the proverbial hook for any kids, so why not?

I ended up not going through with it. Although the MAIN reason was not fear of what happened to this fellow, that was also a concern. My main concern was just never knowing whether I had “donation” children and, if so, who and where they were.

(Asterisk: I may not have qualified on the, um, urological side anyway, although I did qualify on the “SAT scores and top college degree” side. You had to be in the top 15% for motility and such things, in addition to having the scores, etc. Never found out.)


38 posted on 01/02/2013 1:39:09 PM PST by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Agreed. You make a good point. If gay people want equality, let’s give it to them - good and hard.


39 posted on 01/02/2013 1:57:04 PM PST by Hardastarboard (Bringing children to America without immigration documents is child abuse. Let's end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

There was a contract. The state decided it was unenforceable, because it signed away the rights of the child.

The issue is that this situation is protected ONLY when the donation goes through a doctor (or a facility served by a doctor). The lesbian couple “tin-cupped” the donation through Craig’s List (with no money changing hands).


40 posted on 01/02/2013 2:00:32 PM PST by MortMan (Disarming the sheep only emboldens the wolves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

He did not have sex with the woman. He placed his sample in a plastic cup. But he did so outside the auspices of a sperm bank or doctor’s office.


41 posted on 01/02/2013 2:03:35 PM PST by MortMan (Disarming the sheep only emboldens the wolves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Guess the sperm donor clinics may be watching this closely, as well as all the guys who’ve donated over the years.


42 posted on 01/02/2013 2:12:10 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

SO now will couples where an egg was donated be able to get child support from the woman who donated the egg, if they split up or are on public assistance?

I would think so if we’re treating everyone EQUAL here.


43 posted on 01/02/2013 2:13:45 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf
"Ohh, what a tangled web we weave when first ...."

we practice to deceive conceive... ;-)

44 posted on 01/02/2013 3:02:41 PM PST by RatSlayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RatSlayer
Tah Daahhh ..

Very good ... you win.

45 posted on 01/02/2013 3:07:46 PM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Clintons Are White Trash; HerrBlucher; mgist; raptor22; victim soul; Isabel2010; ...

The words of one of FR’s resident Padres (a title of respect for ALL Chaplains who serve our military), and often very right, Padre xzins wrote:

It’s a good thing for the FATHER (alias: sperm donor) to be required by law to support his own child.

This underscores a couple of conservative principles:

1. Homosexual couples are not procreative. This is the heart and soul of one major argument against homosexual marriage.

2. Ultimate Responsibility for one’s own procreative activity despite odd schemes and agreements to the contrary.

3. Unnatural marriage deprives a child of a role model whether male or female.


46 posted on 01/02/2013 6:01:41 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Clintons Are White Trash; HerrBlucher; mgist; raptor22; victim soul; Isabel2010; ...

The words of one of FR’s resident Padres (a title of respect for ALL Chaplains who serve our military), and often very right, Padre xzins wrote:

It’s a good thing for the FATHER (alias: sperm donor) to be required by law to support his own child.

This underscores a couple of conservative principles:

1. Homosexual couples are not procreative. This is the heart and soul of one major argument against homosexual marriage.

2. Ultimate Responsibility for one’s own procreative activity despite odd schemes and agreements to the contrary.

3. Unnatural marriage deprives a child of a role model whether male or female.


47 posted on 01/02/2013 6:02:43 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

instead of whatever (I don’t want to know) went on here.


Just don’t eat Thanksgiving dinner at their house....or if you do, avoid the turkey at all costs.


48 posted on 01/02/2013 6:09:24 PM PST by garbanzo (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

If Marotta wants to see his daughter, he only has to petition the court for parenting time. The contract is not binding on the state and is, probably, against public policy. If he were to ask, the court would find a way to integrate him into the child’s life over time and he would have regular parenting time. He has a constitutional right to know his biological child. The birth mother, on the other hand, could if she wished, probably exclude the “other mother” from the little girl’s life. I say “probably” because the issue of “psychological parent” has not been fully litigated in Kansas. A psychological parent is with whom the child has bonded. Kennedy in the landmark case Trullinger wrote a defense which set the ground work for this theory. In other states, if the court finds that the child has bonded to a third party, like domestic partner whether of same or different sex, then it can order visitation with that third party.


49 posted on 01/05/2013 7:45:29 AM PST by Mercat (Adventures make you late for dinner. Bilbo Baggins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RatSlayer
Hail to the winner....pun of the month!

Leni

50 posted on 01/05/2013 7:52:46 AM PST by MinuteGal (Send a penny NOW to CNN, 1 Time-Warner Center, NY, NY 10019 for "PENNIES FOR LEAVIN!" (Piers Morgan))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson