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 ...
Nelson
Cynical laugh
Ha, ha
Idiots will never learn.
Are there any sperm doners here? What would motivate you to do that?
“papers please”
Good way to end sperm donation to gay couples.
SnakeDoc
Don’t do stupid things.
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?
Who here could not see this crap coming? Anyone? Please, ANYONE??
FMCDH(BITS)
Ohh, what a tangled web we weave when at first ....
They make ruling after ruling against them but no income means nothing to garnish.
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.
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
There’s an old army saying . . .
Fatherhood is determined via biology. What, you hate science?
This could encourage some sperm donors to want to make direct deposits. -tom
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!
No man wants to direct deposit an actual lesbian. They never look like ‘experimenting’ slumber-party cheerleaders you’re imagining.
SnakeDoc
Help a gay couple.
Get screwed over.
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.
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.
Caveat Emptor has been changed.
Now it is Caveat Ejaculator.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sounds about right to me...
Regards,
GtG
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.
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.
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.
... the child is still yours.
You left one out:
Lesbian couples cannot be “parents” to the full extent of the term because a father is required.
I agree with you.
My point 3 is similar to what you’re saying, but yours better states that particular issue.
Note to self - Don’t “donate” to couples on craig’s list.
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.
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.)
Agreed. You make a good point. If gay people want equality, let’s give it to them - good and hard.
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).
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.
Guess the sperm donor clinics may be watching this closely, as well as all the guys who’ve donated over the years.
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.
we practice to deceive conceive... ;-)
Very good ... you win.
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.
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.
instead of whatever (I don’t want to know) went on here.
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.
Leni
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.