We have been following cases where sperm donors have been held for child support or alternatively sought parental rights. The latest such case is out of Kansas where the state is pursuing a sperm donor for child support. William Marotta responded to an advertisement by a lesbian couple to donate sperm, but, after the couple split up, the state insisted on being given his name as the father and pursued him for monthly support payments.
Angela Bauer and her former partner, Jennifer Schreiner, put the advertisement on Craig’s list in March 2009 and Marotta decided to help out. Recently he was told that the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) recently compelled Bauer to reveal the name as a condition for state support. Since the state does not recognize same-sex marriage, the couple had to adopt the child. They adopted a total of eight children during over the course of their relationship. This appears the only child by artificial insemination. The couple elected to artificially inseminate Schreiner. Bauer cannot support the child without state support due to an illness. The state said that if the parents did not reveal the donor’s name, it would withhold health benefits. Marotta, a 46-year-old machinist, believes that the state is actually targeting him out of hostility for same-sex couples.
Ironically, since the state does not recognize same-sex marriage, it cannot collect child support from the women.
Marotta signed an agreement relinquishing all legal claims to the child but the state insists that this does not relieve him of child support obligations. He is fighting the agency action though he is facing high legal costs.
Source: Washington Post
Maybe at the end of the day it does come down to contract law: that included in the contract is the stip[ulation that there will be no financial liability whatsoever for the child that may result as a result of the use of his contribution. (I just had a lawyer have me sign an agreement, to get back a part of my retainer the small claims court did not give me (small claims court gave me back 1/3 cause lawyer included counts barred by the statute of limitations but allowed that the 4 complaints attempted were all rife with factual errors did not require more money returned. Lawyer contacted me after and after some emailing back and forth said would return the rest of my money if I signed a contract that stipulated that ‘it will be as if the relationship never existed”. If a contract can erase a professional relationship then it should be able to adequately address financial liability possibilities in the future for the sperm donor.
So, I’m a little confused here. The article and Turley refer to “sperm donor” and “artificial insemination.” So, I’m thinking doctor and clinic and in vitro fertilization. But, reading the article, it makes it clear that Kansas has a law holding sperm donors harmless from any obligations, including child support, if it’s done through a doctor or clinic. In this case, the couple and the sperm donor met through a craigs list advertisement and the article says this wasn’t through a doctor or clinic. If I’m reading correctly between the lines, then this was a do-it-yourself artificial insemination (I suppose that’s possible that it worked that way, but it’s also possible that the child was conceived naturally and they’re now saying it was artificial insemination to make a stronger case for relieving the father of child support).
This makes me reconsider whether the State of Kansas is the bad guy here. Do we want a rule where the biological father is relieved of child support simply because the biological father and mother sign a contract prospectively relieving the father of support obligations? In this case, there’s not even any mention of a written contract, so it may be that they simply had a verbal agreement that the father wouldn’t have any rights or any obligations. Would it apply only to cases of do it yourself artificial insemination or to all conceptions? Why make a distinction between the two? I don’t think it’s a good rule for the biological parents to agree between themselves about future child support, at least when it comes to the state support for the child.
In this case, part of the problem seems to be that Kansas does not recognize gay marriage. Thus, I suspect the child in question was never adopted by the non-biological mother. I think that normally when an adoption occurs the rights and obligations of the non-adopting biological parent are extinguished. That would have got this poor mechanic off the hook. But, without some formal process for relieving the biological father, which doesn’t seem to have occurred in this case, then he should generally be on the hook for child support.
If he is good for the child support and his sperm was good enough for mama then she cant contest his fitness to be the parent and therefore custody goes to him. Then he can cash in the kid at the sperm bank and be even. What comes around goes around and sauce for the goose is sperm for the gander.
On second thought, given the state of the state these days, the targeted guys would probably go after the women, take their kids away and throw them in jail. Their defense could certainly then claim that he screwed them so why couldn’t he be the father of their child/children?
Well, there is a “bad girl” who could have forfeited her benefits to stop this draconian step by the govt. So there’s that.
P Smith, Good for the single mothers. Unfortunately, this bit has been going on for so long and so widespread that it would be hard to name the man/men responsible. There are organizations who work with welfare recipients who could adopt this concept and find a man, probably one for each state, who could turn this abuse around.
bettykath :
“Another hoop for those needing help to go thru: name the father or you and your child can starve.”
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2457&dat=19940405&id=-6xAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bDgHAAAAIBAJ&pg=5693,1198209
During the 1990s in the province of New Brunswick, the then-Premier Frank McKenna tried to force women to “name the father or get cut off from welfare”.
Single mothers responded in large numbers by saying “Frank McKenna is the father”. They shifted the burden on to him, made him prove he was not responsible for child care.
I don’t know whether it worked or the government forced single women into more poverty, but it certainly was a poke in the eye to him, and a massive embarrassment.
Look at the outrageous conduct of the state agencies involved here. These agencies are filled with power-hungry abusers who virtually SELL their ability to disregard everyone’s constitutional rights and cross over borders with insane confiscatory orders. This amounts to government-backed theft. If the man could not make a contract to give away his sperm without subjecting himself to a third party’s assault on his liberty interests and property interests, there IS no law protecting his constitutional rights.
The state should recognize the marriage and go after the real second parent of the child to pay child support. The guy should not have to.
Another hoop for those needing help to go thru: name the father or you and your child can starve.
leejcaroll,
But he didn’t expect a state imposed liability for helping others who could not have a child without his aid assistance and expressly stated that they didn’t want him to assume any liability for a child that they alone wanted. This is blackmail by a state agency based on an outdated and religiously dictated definition of marriage. It has nothing to do with parental responsibility being a matter of genetics instead of legal relationship. Many genetic parents are not the legal parents of their children. If not, there where would no adoptions, no orphans and no parents stripped of their rights due to abuse and neglect. There is only one “bad guy” here and it’s the State of Kansas in moving forward with this extortion.
JAG, I think your views are pretty mainstream. Maybe that’s wishfull thinking?
The State just wants the SSI Title-D money. Want to do a real report? Report the corruption within this funding. .
JAG, Sounds like a good case for Mr. Turley, don’t you think?
Absolutely Nick….
————-
I have VERY different views on this than most people….
I NEVER want for a man to be able to force a woman to carry a fetus she is not ready to carry…..
so I do not think it is OK to force a man to pay for a child he did not ask for…..
women these days do some REALLY underhanded things to get pregnant….. They poke pin holes in condoms…. they take and use the contents of discarded condoms…. they LIE….
NOPE… men should NOT have to pay in these kinds of cases…..
and ESPECIALLY Sperm Donation…..
But he did ask for the child when he donated his sperm. He knew that is what can happen when sperm and egg unite, he did not expect a tuba or a bike, he knew it could be a child with all the needs that a child entails.
I don;t know, seems to me if legal rights severed then financial included but at the same time, this person knew there was a good chance he would have a child running around in the world. The state (i.e. you and I) should not be required to pay for its upkeep.
this is where men get a REALLY raw deal….
when I got pregnant with my daughter….
her father and I were breaking up and he did not want a
child….
So, I gave him the option of being a father or
stating on the BC Father Unknown…..
I am ABSOLUTELY Pro Choice….
and being Pro Choice in my eyes should go BOTH ways….
He would have had NO SAY if I had wanted an abortion…..
then I think it is ONLY fair that since he did not want a child..
that he not be on the hook for child support….
This case is so completely outrageous….
I too hope he gets a good lawyer and beats this….
No good deed goes unpunished.
One of the unintended consequences (I assume that the state is acting out of stupidity and not malevolence) is that sperm donors will get scarce.
Keep the family jewels in the family …
“Nice guys finish last.” Leo Durocher
He’s being penalized for his handiwork. Not fair.
This is an outrageous example of what happens when religious beliefs are mixed with governance issues. I hope this guy can get someone to fight this nonsense as far as it takes.