Kansas sperm donor ordered to pay child support prepares for battle

Fox News ^ | 12/31/2012 | By Joshua Rhett Miller

[redreno]

A Kansas sperm donor who was ordered to pay child support for the baby he helped a lesbian couple conceive plans to fight back in court, and suggested he might be a victim of bias against same-sex parenting.

William Marotta told FoxNews.com he might never have agreed to provide sperm to Angela Bauer and her former partner, Jennifer Schreiner, had he known the legal morass that awaited him after responding to the women’s Craigslist ad for a donor in March 2009. The Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) recently filed a child support claim against Marotta after the couple filed for state assistance this year, leading the department to demand they provide the donor’s name so it could collect

[Travis McGee]

Even if you leave your child on the hospital steps, it is still your child. Your sperm, your “donation,” your dna, your child. No matter what the law says today or tomorrow.

[Travis McGee]

PS When the child comes of age and searches for his or her father, it is not the state or a lesbian or a judge the child desperately yearns to find. It is the man who supplied the dna, period.

[AbolishCSEU]

Your oversimplification of the matter is astounding. Obviously you have not been through "Family" Court in the Western Hemisphere as a white "middle class" male; the PARIAH of the feminist-sponsored "family" government agencies, over the last two decades.

This entire mess is due to the Title IV-D laws (use your fav search engine)

WHERE is the "Equal Parenting Time Enforcement Unit?" Instead, the average "middle class" (usually) caucasian man has to spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees trying to preserve his basic parental rights which supposedly are guaranteed to him on the divorce decree. The rights that the mother almost instinctively keeps blocking by denying visitation

But we do have a "Child Support Enforcement Unit" that collects matching Fed funds for every "child" support dollar collected as an incentive never to grant a downward modification to the (male) payor, despite non-voluntary unemployment (laysoffs etc)

We also have the "Child Protective Services" agency that takes daddykins away in cuffs should he try to provide fatherly guidance for Junior/Suzy. This is a helpful tool for mommykins to exhert her universal sovereignty over the child(ren) should daddykins dare provide boundaries for "her little man/her little princess."

ESPECIALLY true if mommykins discerns that daddykins has decided to "move on." REAL child abuse is terribly dangerous and politically incorrect to pursue.

The ULTIMATE in taxation without representation.

(P.S., I'm a 52 year old divorced female who had two--now grown and productive--children. I never received child support, but somehow managed not to alienate the children from dad) So your ideas MAY have been valid back in the early EIGHTIES but they are no longer the case.

[USAF80]

The child support formulas (Melson) are derived form a Communist system. I always say that the income earner with the largest salary should get custody. Fathers get soaked and the kids usually don’t even see most of the money.

I like how Australia does it. If a woman gets pregnant on purpose, no child support. If the woman moves out of state, no child support. They have about 18 different scenarios where the woman would not be able to collect.

[Travis McGee]

I don’t give a damn what you, the law of yesterday, today, or tomorrow, judges, lawyers, lesbian or hetero mommies or anybody else says: a man’s DNA is supplied only voluntarily, and when it’s offered to a woman’s uterus via natural means or a turkey baster, it produces that man’s child.

A man’s sperm produces a man’s child. Who else is the father? An archangel? An alien? An abstract legal construct?

And when that child reaches age and searches for his or her father, he’s searching for the man who VOLUNTARILY produced his DNA, one way or the other.

You, the courts, and a million lesbians can pretend otherwise, but the FATHER of that child is, and always shall be, the man who provided the DNA via his sperm.

Now, if he’s an unfit father, a deadbeat, a drug addict or whatnot and should have his rights terminated by the court, that is another legal question.

But he will be the child’s father nonetheless.

[AbolishCSEU]

Thank you for completely missing my point. WHY do we have child support in the first place? If the bio parents do break up shouldn't it be 50/50 custody with each parent paying for the child when said child is in said parent's custody? "Child" support is the pinnacle of wealth redistribution. No one is disputing that genetically that man is the father. What is being disputed is that why should a lesbian couple be allowed to go on welfare after they made it PERFECTLY clear that they "don't need a man?"

They somehow need a man's WALLET and none of his influence on child rearing. The fact that the Welfare system blindly goes after the father as a kneejerk reaction is what is at issue here. And as far as "deadbeat" goes, there are more per capita "deadbeat" MOMS not paying their child support than there are "deadbeat" dads. Your false chivalry is showing.

[PLK]

I’d rather be their kid than one of the millions of fetuses murdered each year by straight mothers.

Agree, life is always better. I don't think it's an either/or situation though. Many families are waiting to adopt.

[clamper1797]

No more sperm donors ... and death to the turkey baster industry. I don’t feel a bit sorry for the lesbos and their desire to have “pet” children

[ReformationFan]

Did you listen to the Michael Medved show the other day by chance?

[clamper1797]

No I did not ... What was said ?

[ReformationFan]

I only caught a snippet discussing this very issue. I went on his website to try to see if I could hear it but I think one has to listen to the whole 3 hrs to get to it-

http://www.michaelmedved.com/from-the-show/todays-broadcast/