http://www.koaa.com/news/sperm-donor-forced-to-pay-child-support/ TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) - A Topeka, Kansas sperm donor says a state effort to force him to pay child support for a child conceived through artificial insemination by a lesbian couple is a politically motivated act that has already cost him thousands of dollars. William Marotta, 46, said he is "a little scared about where this is going to go, primarily for financial reasons," The Topeka Capital-Journal reported Monday. When he donated sperm to Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner in 2009, Marotta relinquished all parental rights, including financial responsibility to 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 now 3-year-old girl. Bauer and Schreiner broke up in 2010 but co-parent their eight children, who range in age from 3 months to 25 years. "In the long run, I think this will be a good thing, but I'm the one getting squashed," Marotta said. "I can't even believe it's gone this far at this point, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it." Though his attorneys, Benoit Swinnen and Hannah Schroller, are charging him reduced rates, Marotta said he expects the legal fees to eventually be more than he can afford. He is predominantly a mechanic but said he is currently working in a different field. He and his wife, Kimberly, have no biological children but care for foster children. "I've already paid more than 10 percent of my yearly salary, and I don't know many folks who are willing to give up more than 10 percent of their yearly income," he said. 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. "DCF is required by statute to establish paternity and then pursue child support from the non-custodial parent," she wrote. A hearing on a motion by Marotta's attorneys to dismiss the case is scheduled for Jan. 8 in Shawnee County District Court. Bauer and Schreiner have said they fully support Marotta's efforts to fight the state's request. When Bauer was diagnosed in March with what she calls "a significant illness" that prevents her from working, Schreiner sought health insurance for their daughter from the state. The DCF told Schreiner if she didn't provide the sperm donor's name, it would deny any health benefits because she was withholding information. Marotta said Monday he doesn't resent Schreiner for giving the state his name. "I resent the fact that Jennifer was pressured into doing that in the first place," he said. "That was wrong - wrong by the state." Marotta said he is convinced the state's effort is politically motivated. "It's my understanding that (Bauer) told the department of child services right off the bat, 'I will be financially responsible for this' and they in essence told her, 'No, get lost. You're not part of this,'" he said. "And when somebody's willing to say 'Hold it a minute, I'm the one who's responsible for this' and another agency says 'No, get lost,' whether it's bureaucratic politics or something more than that - it's a Republican state, yeah, I think it's politics." Swinnen said if administrative hearing officer Lori Yockers chooses not to dismiss the case, it would go to the discovery phase and his office would file a motion seeking summary judgment in Marotta's favor.
WTF??!!! The crazy GOP which supports visiting rights of rapests now orders child support to sperm donors. The talk of Big Government is full of baloney.
That's ridiculous. No respect for the rights of the parents there, for sure. At least the two mothers are against this bullshit too. I hope he wins and stops this. Imagine if he lost....what would happen then? Would people come out of the woodwork wanting their sperm donors to pay up? No man in hi s right mind would ever want to donate sperm again.
Was thinking the same thing. Not to mention the legal ramifications of contract laws. Dude signed away his rights, that should be it. I don't get how that can be ignored.
Under contract law doctrine, the contract should govern everyone's rights here. However, public policy often dictates breaking with precedent in the interests of sound policy (i.e. what is in the child's best interest, regardless of what the adults think). However, it's not by any means clear that reinserting a man who thought he was making an "arm's length" transaction into the life of this child or the support picture is in the child's best interest. One thing in favor of overturning this on appeal is the chilling effect it would have on donations, insemination and research.
Something isn't adding up - if she claimed to DCS that she 'will be financially responsible for it', then why was she applying for medical aid for the child? She said she couldn't work, yet the Federal Gov subsidizes States to provide free or reduced-cost medical insurance for a child regardless of the parents inability to pay. (see C.H.I.P. http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CH.../Childrens-Health-Insurance-Program-CHIP.html The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) provides health coverage to nearly 8 million children in families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid, but can’t afford private coverage. Signed into law in 1997, CHIP provides federal matching funds to states to provide this coverage. CHIP enrollment by state State and Federal Funding for CHIP So this makes me think she had applied for State child support and the story isn't telling us this.
This is plain retarded. I dont know which is the first bad news i have heard in 2013 this or the fact that Hugh Hefner 86, has married his third wife Christal Harris 26, after she dumped him 5 days to their wedding in 2011.
If the State were to sanction this agreement, then any man and woman could co-conspire to absolve a man (or woman) of any financial responsibility for the child they produced, thus leaving it to the State to pay. There is no record to prove that they qualify for any exemption under the current law, which is when it's performed by a State Licenced doctor and meticulous medical records are kept. A chicken baster doesn't cut it. Further, she was obligated under State or Federal law to provide the name of the father if she was aware of it or his whereabouts, or be denied. Also if she lied and was approved, she would be looking at hefty fines and/or jail-time. What is the precedent with surrogate mothers who change their minds - isn't the father still obligated to pay for support along with shared custody? Yes.
As cold as it sounds, this isn't about respect for parent's rights at all. It's about asking the Gov to pay for your child after side-stepping their laws. Donating sperm remains safe, lol. Just do it the LEGAL way and not through a Craigslist Ad like him. :| (or Tarshi's seduction attempts ) On another precedent, what would stop any rich man for example, saying to a woman he's about get busy with; "look, if we have sex, there's a chance you could get pregnant and I want to relinquish all my legal and financial rights as a (future) daddy, so let's sign this contract my lawyer drew up, ok?"
So he signs all his parental rights away and the state still wonders whose paternity this child belongs to? " there remains the question of who actually is the father of a child or children" If he's signed his rights away to the child, then that should establish paternity on a superficial level. Not to mention he SIGNED his rights away..and that includes financial obligation for the child. I hope he wins this case and shuts the GOP with their "small government" mantra right the hell up. It's probably going to cost tax payers more for the state to recoup the benefit money than it will to actually just provide the benefits. Brilliance shines bright in this state.
not sure if has been said but the other woman stated she will be the one to make payments not him...but the state said fuck you.
I have learnt that in life NOTHING is cast in stone so as long as there is a possibility no matter how remote it is to be caught in this shit, i would never ever donate sperm because you never know when it will bite you in the ass. If you detest paying child support for a child you didnt plan for and didnt want like i do, you would think long and hard before you donate your seed no matter the assurances that absolves you from paternity rights.
