Sperm donor fighting order to pay child support
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) - The state of Kansas is trying to force a man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple to pay child support, arguing that the agreement he and the women signed releasing him from all parental duties was invalid because they didn't go through a doctor.
Under Kansas law, a doctor's involvement shields a man from being held responsible for a child conceived through artificial insemination. At least 10 other states have similar laws, including California, Illinois and Missouri, according to the Kansas Department for Children and Families.
William Marotta and the couple he helped have a daughter didn't go through a doctor, so the department is asking a state court to hold him responsible for about $6,000 that the child's biological mother received through public assistance - as well as future child support.
The department also asked the court to appoint an attorney to represent the now 3-year-old girl, independently of her mother.
Marotta is asking that the case be dismissed, arguing that he is not the child's legal father. A hearing is set for Tuesday.
Department spokeswoman Angela de Rocha said Wednesday that when a single mother seeks benefits for a child, the department routinely tries to determine the child's paternity and require the father to make support payments to lessen the potential cost to taxpayers.
She argued that the law regarding artificial insemination is an incentive for donors and prospective mothers to work with a doctor.
"I believe that is the intent of the law, so that we don't end up with these ambiguous situations," she told The Associated Press.
Marotta, a 46-year-old Topeka resident, answered an ad on Craigslist in 2009 from Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, a local couple who said they were seeking a sperm donor.
After exchanging emails and meeting, Marotta and the couple signed an agreement in which the women agreed to "hold him harmless" financially. It also said the child's birth certificate would not list a father.
But the state agency argues the agreement isn't valid, because instead of working with a doctor, Marotta agreed to drop off containers with his sperm at the couple's home, according to prepared court documents the department gave to the AP late Wednesday.
The women handled the artificial insemination themselves using a syringe, and Schreiner eventually became pregnant, according to the documents. The couple broke up in 2010, and last year, Schreiner received public assistance from the state to help care for the girl.
"My ex-partner and I wanted to have a baby," Schreiner said in a written statement to the department in January 2012, also included in the department's latest filing. "We were a gay couple so we had a sperm donor."
Marotta told The Topeka-Capital Journal that he is "a little scared about where this is going to go, primarily for financial reasons." His attorney didn't return a phone message Wednesday from the AP, and there was no listing for his home phone number in Topeka.
Phone numbers listed for Schreiner and Bauer were either incorrect or out of service, and Schreiner did not respond to a message sent by Facebook.
The department first filed a petition against Marotta in Shawnee County District Court in October, asking that he be required to reimburse the state for the benefits and make future child support payments.
Along with the 1994 law regarding artificial insemination, the department cited a 2007 Kansas Supreme Court ruling. In that case, the court decided that a sperm donor who works through a licensed physician can't legally be considered a child's father - and doesn't have the right to visit or help raise the child - absent a formal, written agreement.
However, that case involved a sperm donor who was seeking access to a child but had only an informal, unwritten agreement with the child's mother. Marotta's attorneys contend the state is reading it incorrectly.
Still, Linda Elrod, a law professor and director of Washburn University's Children and Family Law program, said the law seems clear: Sperm donors who don't want to be held liable for child support need to work with a doctor.
"Other than that, the general rule is strict liability for sperm," said Elrod, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court case.
Under Kansas law, a doctor's involvement shields a man from being held responsible for a child conceived through artificial insemination. At least 10 other states have similar laws, including California, Illinois and Missouri, according to the Kansas Department for Children and Families.
William Marotta and the couple he helped have a daughter didn't go through a doctor, so the department is asking a state court to hold him responsible for about $6,000 that the child's biological mother received through public assistance - as well as future child support.
The department also asked the court to appoint an attorney to represent the now 3-year-old girl, independently of her mother.
Marotta is asking that the case be dismissed, arguing that he is not the child's legal father. A hearing is set for Tuesday.
Department spokeswoman Angela de Rocha said Wednesday that when a single mother seeks benefits for a child, the department routinely tries to determine the child's paternity and require the father to make support payments to lessen the potential cost to taxpayers.
She argued that the law regarding artificial insemination is an incentive for donors and prospective mothers to work with a doctor.
"I believe that is the intent of the law, so that we don't end up with these ambiguous situations," she told The Associated Press.
Marotta, a 46-year-old Topeka resident, answered an ad on Craigslist in 2009 from Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, a local couple who said they were seeking a sperm donor.
After exchanging emails and meeting, Marotta and the couple signed an agreement in which the women agreed to "hold him harmless" financially. It also said the child's birth certificate would not list a father.
But the state agency argues the agreement isn't valid, because instead of working with a doctor, Marotta agreed to drop off containers with his sperm at the couple's home, according to prepared court documents the department gave to the AP late Wednesday.
The women handled the artificial insemination themselves using a syringe, and Schreiner eventually became pregnant, according to the documents. The couple broke up in 2010, and last year, Schreiner received public assistance from the state to help care for the girl.
"My ex-partner and I wanted to have a baby," Schreiner said in a written statement to the department in January 2012, also included in the department's latest filing. "We were a gay couple so we had a sperm donor."
Marotta told The Topeka-Capital Journal that he is "a little scared about where this is going to go, primarily for financial reasons." His attorney didn't return a phone message Wednesday from the AP, and there was no listing for his home phone number in Topeka.
Phone numbers listed for Schreiner and Bauer were either incorrect or out of service, and Schreiner did not respond to a message sent by Facebook.
The department first filed a petition against Marotta in Shawnee County District Court in October, asking that he be required to reimburse the state for the benefits and make future child support payments.
Along with the 1994 law regarding artificial insemination, the department cited a 2007 Kansas Supreme Court ruling. In that case, the court decided that a sperm donor who works through a licensed physician can't legally be considered a child's father - and doesn't have the right to visit or help raise the child - absent a formal, written agreement.
However, that case involved a sperm donor who was seeking access to a child but had only an informal, unwritten agreement with the child's mother. Marotta's attorneys contend the state is reading it incorrectly.
Still, Linda Elrod, a law professor and director of Washburn University's Children and Family Law program, said the law seems clear: Sperm donors who don't want to be held liable for child support need to work with a doctor.
"Other than that, the general rule is strict liability for sperm," said Elrod, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court case.
Parents are the lesbian couple who decided to "have a child". They can go hit up her "ex" for money if they want. Plenty of "non-married" ex's get that, so the "marriage" issue is no excuse. This guy has nothing to do with it other than the initial donation of DNA and *both* sides say that. Â But what am I thinking? Guys tend to get royally farked by the government when it comes to anything related to sperm and money. The government has long found out they get away with it, so I guess this is just another one for the books. :P/female
 @cuzsis Same-sex relationships are not recognized in Kansas. Period. The state cannot therefore, hold the other person in a same-sex relationship responsible as a parent. They cannot simply choose to go after her instead of him.
Plant blank, the guy should not have to pay.
Â
Two lesbians get together and they want a kid. Something they cant do on their own.
They get a man to "help" them out, and then they split?
The perverts want the right to marriage? Then whoever was the lover of this lesbian, should be forced to pay for the care of the child.
They want their "marriage", then take the bad with it.
 @Nuclearian I'm sure they'd love to actually. However, as the state of Kansas does not recognize same-sex relationships, and does not allow for a same-sex partner to be listed on the birth certificate or to adopt the child as the second parent, this is what happens. They cannot legally get around this. Don't go blaming someone for laws that prevent them from doing what normally happens in a divorce.
oh give me a break - this poor dude must be kicking himself for getting involved in this.
Â
total BS, and i would assume this will be thrown out. these poor poor women and their child support....come on man, leave this guy out of it.
GOVERNMENT HAS MADE A HASH OF THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT. Kansas requirement that artificial insemination be given the approval or involvement of a doctor should be unConstitutional, infringing upon the right to privacy and the right to contract.
Â
Â
I used a sperm donor for certain reasons (no not gay, but that's not really relevant part of this to me). I can't imagine ever thinking the anonymous donor would have anything to do with child support! I understand the article said the women didn't ask for it, that the state is asking for it. But, I also don't get how the woman had children via these means and now want public assistance at all. Just because they have broken up shouldn't matter; you have children when you can afford to support them.. Especially when you are going to these lengths to have them.   But, it is also crazy for the state to go after this guy when he had a signed agreement to not be responsible in any way. He was/is a genetic donor only.Â
They wanted to be a "couple" so now the other woman should be the one who has to pay. They scream for these "rights" until it might cost them something.
 @Alex Clayton Kansas does not recognize same-sex relationships. As such, the 2nd woman cannot be held responsible under the law, as she cannot legally be the 2nd parent. Not their fault.
No good deed shall go unpunished.Â
Â
This is crap-the other person that left the relationship should be held responsible not this poor schmuck. If the other person offered to be " financially responsible" then the state should let them. This makes no sense.
Billy Marotta never imagined he would be in the news that night, 3 years, 9 months ago... as he sat alone in a closet, with a magazine in one hand and a cup in the other:)
This comment has been deleted
 @man711 Sure, because child support battles never happen between straight couples.
This comment has been deleted
@raven Lesbian or not the law would lay down the same for any doner.
 @raven The government is forcing this not the woman. Learn to read.
 @PrairieDawn  @raven While I agree with you to an extent, ONE of the women filed to receive financial aid that would hold the man liable to pay.  Whether she knew this or not is a different issue, but her action in filing for public assistance did in fact lead to this whole issue.Â
 @contraryjim You want to force her to give up her child because she developed a medical condition that prevented her from working, nice, really nice. Firstly, I never said the donor should be responsible. And secondly, she paid taxes into the system when she was working, so there is no logical reason why she shouldn't be able to use public assistance now that she needs it.
 @alaska_dreamin  @mattjpn She should put the child up for adoption and fade away. Why should the tax payer be responsible, not to mention the donor.
 @mattjpn She has a medical condition that prevents her from working, what would you suggest she do as an alternative to keep roof over their head and food in their stomachs?
"The result is an incentive for donors and prospective mothers to work with a doctor, de Rocha said."
Â
First of all, that's not an incentive, it's the government FORCING you to do it a specific way. Â ""I believe that is the intent of the law, so that we don't end up with these ambiguous situations," she told The Associated Press."
Â
Actually, this situation is only a problem BECAUSE of the law in place. Â The situation isn't even a problem with or without the law, but of course our government wants to make a big deal out of it. Â They have no interest in doing what's right, only what makes them the most money.
 @Landshark It also isn't ambiguous, since all parties completely agreed to, and still agree to, the original terms.Â
I have to wonder why Kansas feels it is so important that people go through a clinic to be artificially inseminated. Â Seems completely unnecessary to me.
@stamperzann sounds like a government way of subsidizing doctors.Â
Â
Oh my GAAWWD I feel bad for these kids...
though it is the law, there is a legal bonding agreement between the two parties. there's no way that they can hold him liable!
If this state gets away with this fiasco then most other states will try to jump on the band wagon to screw the sperm donors into paying for any child that was conceived by him. It is nothing but another rip off of the American public by these cash strapped states. Â
This comment has been deleted
 @FILO BEDO If you read the article in the  Topeka Capital-Journal it says, "...(Bauer) told the department of child services right off the bat, âI will be financially responsible for thisâ and they in essence told her, âNo, get lost. Youâre not part of this.â"
Â
So her, as you put it, "manly butch carpenter girlfreind" did try to take financial responsibility.
Â
I find it absolutely ironic that you can post a hateful diatribe like that and then have the nerve to talk about putting "decent folks" in office.
Â
@alaska_dreamin @FILO BEDO I don't buy what this couple are saying and it is not true that the state would ignore that statement!
 @FILO BEDO I think you need to re-read the article, it's not the women going after the guy, its the STATE!
The box has been opened.
Â
Stay thirsty my friends. eeww.!
What if a same sex couple who are both men want to have a baby? Do they look for a female "womb donor"?
 @JAP506 They are called surrogates and many homosexual male couples do use surrogates, as do many heterosexual couples. The rest generally adopt.
When did a 'surrogate' get tapped for child support?
@bobalouie Surrogates don't "get tapped". Surrogates usually do not provide DNA (eggs). They just provide a nice place for an embryo to grow into a baby. Surrogates are wonderful giving women.
 @bobalouie I never said that a surrogate got tapped for child support, I was simply answering @JAP506 's question.
It is legal in Kansas for the other partner to adopt the child as their own too. Did they not do that? The other woman who was part of the artificial insemination should be responsible for child support - not the sperm donor. I know lots of homophobes are against gay marriage but the upswing even for homophobes is it would've put the parental responsibility where it needed to be - on the other woman in that partnership.
Oh those Craig's List ads...
ALL of this could have been avoided if the lesbians kept this man's identity a secret as they agreed. Although this man is an idiot for not going through legal channels, he should not be forced to support this child. If this child was being raised by both women and then they separate, then why not go after the other lesbian for child support? They want to be parents but when their relationship falls apart, seems like the biological parent is the one left to taking care of the child with the other woman walking away without any responsibility. They BOTH chose to bring a child into the world and they BOTH should be liable for that childs financial care. One more child the tax payers are supporting.
The story says if he went through a licensed clinic he wound not of been at falt. It seems to me maybe they used the old fashioned method to get her pregnant.
 @dmw2913 As stated in article "Marotta agreed to drop off a container with his sperm at the couple's home and the women successfully handled the artificial insemination themselves. Schreiner become pregnant with a girl."
what article are you reading, because it says no such thing in the one above.
 @OHREALLY??? I read the same thing in the article.  Which one are you reading?
Marotta should be suing the state to stop the support proceedings and recover his legal costs.
This has been an emerging problem nationally. Â Sperm donors get a legal action against them even though the sperm bank promised otherwise. Â If he allowed his parental rights to be terminated than the only reason the state is going after him is the same as when washington state goes after a man for child support because he lived with a woman for more than six months. Â Its about time women are held responsible for getting pregnant without involving the man. Â You wanted it he doesn't your screwed
 @Terina Owen Please keep in mind king county prosecuted a man for assault because after having sex with a woman he disposed of his condom by putting tabasco sauce in the condom.  The girl in question than fished it out of the garbage and suffered burns to her area.  I am not against a man being held responsible for his actions but am arguing that women need to be held to the same standard.  If your a guy protect yourself and sometimes the coniving witch gets her just due
Â
 @Terina Owen Best way for guys to protect themselves? Don't have sex with the crazy. (The actual term is probably a bit too rough for this forum, but you get the gist.)
 @Terina Owen The problem is ... they don't actually want Equal Rights. They want this culture where they complain about not being first in line for all the goodies and cupcakes. And the cry so much that our society gives it to them. Then when it's time for them to take equal responsibility for their actions, they all of the sudden want to be seen seen as the week, powerless female that was manipulated by a male. And somehow ... we always let them have this to. Is it any wonder why young men don't want to date/ get married. The burden always falls on men. Women don't have to be accountable for their actions. It's mind blowing. Sadly, no big discussion will come off this. And our system will keep milking men of their rights and money all do women can have it all without accountability.Â
 @Terina Owen Oh, wow, you fell for the oldest urban legend in the book! This one was going on in the mid-80s and everyone fell for it then, too.
Â
But that was long before the Internet made fact-checking so much easier, so they had more of an excuse than someone getting suckered in in 2013.Â
Did you read the article? They all agreed to the situation and he relinquished his parental rights and responsibilities as agreed to beforehand. This is not a situation of simple unprotected sex. It is a case of arranged artificial insemination without the use of a physician. Turkey baster anyone?
Â
FYI - Women cannot get pregnant without the involvement of a man. Unless of course your name is Mary.
@Terina Owen Maybe it's time that men protect themselves from this. It's called birth control and it's also available to men. Unfortunately the morals of this country have gone down the ripper and everyone wants to blame someone else for their behavior. In the meantime there are so many little kids out there that don't have a clue as to why nobody cares.
Yeah, birth control is available to women too. For free. When women have all the rights and tools to make decisions regarding their ability to procreate, maybe they should have the responsibilities that go along with those rights, like paying for their own children when they have them even when the guy does not want a child. There are stories all over of men being screwed even when using protection by vindictive and evil women....to say it's the man's fault for being screwed over by a person with no moral fiber is sexist and ignorant.
 @OHREALLY??? It's what I've said all along. Responsibility for the males. Rights for the females. This is what radical feminism has brought about. We have gone from equality, swung far to the other side where the woman has all the rights and the male has none. And there are many women who see nothing wrong with that, and even go so far as to refuse to acknowledge there is even a problem, even when presented with the facts. Seeing a lot of willful ignorance these days and it is downright scary that these people vote.....explains a lot as to how we got where we are.
Really!! You are going to cling to that fallacious argument after reading this story.
First, the choice to have a child (give birth) is 100% a woman's choice, because she can take emergency contraceptive pills or use a copper T intrauterine device (IUD) up to 5days later, have a surgical abortion or take the abortion pill RU486 regardless of what the father (a man) thinks, give the child up for adoption or up to a certain age legally abandon the child at a safe haven.
Secondly, this man clearly did not want to have a child and was only trying to help this lesbian couple out. He was not in a sexual relationship with them, so one of the few birth controls that are available to men (a condom) would not matter and to be quite honest not even relevant.
Finally, agreeing to have sex with someone does not mean that you agree to have a child with that person. Yes, you are right that we should protect ourselves if we don't want to have children, but men have very few choices and no options in that area. There is about a 1 : 3 ratio of choices for men v. women. In other words, women have 15 options and choices to protect themselves against unplanned pregnancies and the responsibilities of being a parent, whereas men only have 4 choices which all begin before conception and none of them have a 100% successful prevention rate even when perfectly used.
In conclusion, your argument is not only weak, but borders on a bold-face lie. You claim that both sexes are responsible for their choices, if they don't want a child they should use their choices to prevent it, the blame lies completely with the person responsible and it's illogical to blame the other person for not protecting yourself. This implies that men have equal options to protect themselves from an unplanned pregnancy or that they have any choice in preventing or not preventing the birth of a child. Conception and birth are two different things, which is why couples that conceive don't say we a have a baby, but we are going to have a baby. The choice to have that baby is 100% the woman's choice and as you said "We are ALL, both sexes, responsible for are choices. Therefore, in your words, the person to blame for having a child that one or both "sexes don't want would be the woman's, and to blame the other person would be illogical.
@dg54321 We are ALL, both sexes, responsible for our choices. IF either party does not want a child then it's up to them to take precautions to prevent it. This is one of those issues that the blame lies completely with the person responsible. To say that we didn't protect ourselves and then blame the other person is not even logical.
 @MargeGunderson  @dg54321 Luv ya Marge but pray tell, how does a man "trick" a woman in to sleeping with him? I mean it's not like men will tell a prospective lass that they are a touring member of say, "Flock of Seagulls" and that you are going to the after-party and oh, sorry I don't have any comp tickets but 'ow about I come over to your place after our set?"
Â
That would NEVER work...;)))))
 @dg54321 Saying it's the man's fault for being screwed over (no pun intended, presumably) is insultingly sexist, alright â to men.
Â
That's exactly how it was back in the 1940s and earlier when society assumed women needed escorts and protection from horny men wanting to trick them into having sex.Â