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 ...
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).
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.