E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA Kansas man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple three years ago is fighting the state’s demand that he pay child support.
The two women raising the 3-year-old girl say they support the man, who responded to an ad they posted on the Craigslist website in 2009, the Topeka Capital-Journal reported.
The issue of child support arose when the two women broke up, and the couple applied for state services. Workers at the Kansas Department for Children and Families demanded the donor’s name and then filed a child-support claim against him, the newspaper said.
Angela Bauer, one of the mothers, told the Capital-Journal that she and her former partner, Jennifer Schreiner, support the donor, William Marotta, “in whatever action he wants to go forward with” to fight the state's demand.
"This was a wonderful opportunity with a guy with an admirable, giving character who wanted nothing more than to help us have a child," the newspaper quoted Bauer, 40, as saying. "I feel like the state of Kansas has made a mess out of the situation."
When Bauer and Schreiner, the 34-year-old birth mother, reached a deal with Marotta that did not include any payment for his sperm donation, he signed a written agreement that relinquished all parental rights and held him harmless “for any child support payments demanded of him by any other person or entity, public or private ... regardless of the circumstances or said demand,” it said.
The state argued in court papers that because the insemination wasn’t performed by a licensed physician, the contract was null and void.
When the two women split in 2010, they had eight children, including some they adopted, whom they now co-parent.
Marotta, a 43-year-old mechanic, was dragged into the dispute when the couple filed for state assistance. The state insisted that they reveal the donor’s identity, saying that if they refused to do so, their daughter would no longer be eligible for health care coverage. The women reluctantly complied, the Capital-Journal reported.
The girl’s birth certificate does not include her biological father’s name, and the Capital-Journal said that he had no contact with the girl, other than receiving occasional email updates from Bauer. Both women adopted the girl, although they had to file for adoption separately because the state does not recognize same-sex unions, the newspaper said. This means that the state also cannot collect child support from same-sex parents.
"More and more gays and lesbians are adopting and reproducing, and this, to me, is a step backward," said Bauer, who formerly supported the family financially but is no longer able to work due to a "serious illness." "I think a lot of progressive movement is happening currently in the world as far as gays and lesbians go. Maybe this is Kansas' stand against some of that."
The Capital-Journal could not reach Marotta for comment and the Kansas Department for Children and Families declined to discuss the case, citing privacy laws.
This isn’t the first time states have demanded child support from sperm donors. But in most of those cases, the sperm donor was known to the birth family – usually a man who was friendly with a lesbian couple and who agreed to help them out.
Court rulings vary
Sperm donors who donate through a sperm bank are typically protected by state parenting shield laws. But in less straight-forward cases, courts have differed on whether the men should pay up.
A Massachusetts court ruled this year that a Nigerian immigrant had to pay child support for twins conceived through artificial insemination a year after he and his wife had separated, the Patriot Ledger reported.
And In Vermont, a man who donated sperm to a female friend was required to pay child support because he maintained a relationship with the children.
Explained one of the mothers to The Associated Press in 2007: "Part of the decision came down because he was so involved with them. It wasn't that he went to the (sperm) bank and that was it. They called him Papa."
In New York, a married doctor agreed to donate sperm to a young resident and her partner in the late 1980s, only to be asked 18 years later for child support, the New York Post reported.
His undoing was sending money and cards to the child, which he would sign, “Dad” or “Daddy.” The biological father’s name was also on the birth certificate.
But in Washington state, the Court of Appeals ruled in 2004 that a donor can’t be required to pay child support unless he and the mother have signed an explicit contract.
And in Texas, an appeals court ruled in favor of a former policeman who donated sperm to a woman he had been formerly connected with. He had paid thousands of dollars in child support for twins until the court ruled in his favor.
When the lawsuit was filed in 2008, the man told McClatchy: "I was totally blown away. I was already married and had moved on with my life."
NBC's Isolde Raftery and The Associated Press contributed reporting.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Officers' 'gut feeling' tracks down missing LA toddler
- Homicides plummet in NYC, leap in Chicago
- Snowstorm disrupts hundreds of Northeast flights
- Video: High profits seen in 'green rush' for legal marijuana
- At 1989 parole hearing, firefighter shooter wondered if he might kill
Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
If you have a healthy, logical mind, stay the hell away from Kansas. Its his own damn fault for living there.
just applied for a new job. I was asked"would you relocate" I asked "When do I start" Lived in KS. most of my life and can't wait too
get the hell out of the land of OZ.
Religious types don't like alternative families - this is one way to stop them.
Should the man be required to pay child support for lesbian couple (now separated)? HELL NO, the child should not be harmed. Since the Lesbians were a couple, since one that is seeking support from the state the other Lesbian should and must be required to pay back the state, not the sperm donor. Since they want equal rights they should and must be forced to pay child support like a regular couple would.
And they want to, too. The only entity that wants the sperm donor to pay is the government. The lesbians are on HIS side.
Hooray for KANSAS!!!!!!!!!!! Why in the hell should the taxpayers pay for this kid??????? Donate your sperm, create a baby,and then be responsible for it! It's a no brainer........................
Ah, that explains it... you have no brains!
@-god
OK, you're right on that one.
OldDog, you can't agree with me, what will everyone think? ;-)
Kansas is messed up? Well the lesbian couple adopting 8 kids and having another one this way is messed up. Stupid is as stupid does.
This just WRONG of the state of Kansas. This man should not be forced to pay for this child!
We're not in Kansas any more, Dorothy. Kansas is a thing of the past. It just happens to be living in the present. But not for long.
It's Kansas for gawd's sakes! What do you expect?
It could just as easily be California or Illinois! Stupid state officials abound wherever you are!
No, Kansas is a backward, old-time thinking state.
Eight children, really? Talk about being fiscally irresponsible. Maybe the mothers should run for Congress. They want to have all these kids and have someone else pay to raise them. That is what is wrong with our country today. So many people not willing to be accountable for their own actions. The children belong to the mothers. Let them support their own kids.
According to the article, one of the women was supporting the entire family just fine until a serious illness caused her to lose her clearly good paying job. They had plenty of money when they had or adopted their children.
I want to know what the serious illness is since the article has it in quotation marks.
I don't know what it was. But, according to another article, they received assistance all of 3 months from July - September of 2012. So, regardless of what the serious illness was, one (or both) of the women were able to get jobs and get off assistance quickly. In other words, they used it for the temporary support it is suppose to be for.
http://www.kansas.com/2012/12/29/2618255/state-pursuing-child-support-from.html
Seriously? 6189.00? The county must be really hard up.
I know, right. I guess the claim is that if he were paying child support, it would prevent them from needing assistance in the future. The problem with that line of thinking is that the man was never intended to have parental rights or responsibilities - just like in cases of adoption.
I'm beginning to believe the saying...."no good deed goes unpunished".
Yay! The new normal.
This goes into the file called "Conservatives do the darnedest things".
And that comment goes into the file called "liberals say the stupidest sh!t"
Yeah Benet blame Kansas for the "darnedest things", not the morons that done this through @!$%#ing craigslist. If that moron was so well off she could provide for 8 children go through the normal channels not requesting a sperm donor through craigslist.
This is how a theocracy works.....
You go into the same file with Benet!
Should anyone who plans to give birth to a child be required to show that they are able to support the child?
that goes against the democratic party stance !
Um, actually that would go against the biblical injunction to go forth and multiply, which is one of the religious rights' big tenets. You know, abortion is wrong, masturbation is wrong.
If people were actually expected to prove that they could afford to have children, what would be the criteria? That they would have to have the money up front for college? Medical bills?
Take the Duggans; if they weren't getting paid for the reality show, would they really be able to support 19 kids on his engineers salary?
I'm sorry for the partner's illness but really the state really can't expect the sperm donor to pay child support, ridiculous. However, should the taxpayers pick up the tab?? I can't see them trying to do this to a straight couple's sperm donor.
This issue has nothing to do with lesbians, gays or whatever. If the child's mother had been partnered with a man, and they fell on hard times, once it was determined that the child was from a sperm donor, the state would still be trying to go after the donor. It all comes down to Brownback and his budget cuts. The money doesn't come as easily now, so the state seems to think they can go after the poor guy that donated his sperm so a family could be created. If the couple has split up and gone separate ways, then the partner should be the one responsible for child support...not the sperm donor.
I am not sure that is true, diane. When have you seen Kansas come after a man who had his parental rights terminated? If this is allowed to stand, what next, going after young people who give up their child for adoption. the man had no parental rights.
Can we nominate Kansas as the dumbest state in the union?
Why, did they vote for Obama?
california & new york are already tied for first.
This is just another discriminatory action against gays and lesbians and anyone who endorses their lifestyle. Whether or not you would choose the lifestyle, this is America and that brings certain freedoms.
Everybody should be outraged by this. It means young people who give up their children to be adopted can later be tracked down and ordered to pay child support. It means having parental rights terminated means nothing to do anyone....or is the state just involved here as a way to punish folks in a situation they do not approve of?
Really stupid dude....I would never consider anything like that if I wasn't part of the relationship help raising the child. It's your child...pay up.
So, old dad...when a man gives up his parental right in straight situations, should they pay? How about young women who give their child up for adoption? It really is no different and there are straight folks who use donors too.
This isn't news...this is Kansas. What would you expect from a bunch of knuckle-dragging. mouth-breathing homophobes? I'm sure that they'll claim that God told them to file this claim.
Yet another "anti-intrusive, small government" Republican state doing its best to intrude in the private lives of citizens. They believe government must stay out of their lives, but have no problem micro managing other people's lives.
This is exactly what is wrong with this country...No good deed goes unpunished. Try to help anyone out and all you do is get screwed in the process...
Well, pretty much under any circumstance, if your a guy, the law is automatically against ya when it comes to reproduction. You have no say no matter what. We are nothing but a cash source. Dont give em the baby batter guys... its just trouble.
That's right! Don't you have anything to do with those nasty, evil women! Keep it safely in your tighty-whities!
Lol, I wonder how many other men have been duped into being a far a way dad? How many parents can a child have? Maybe the courts should make it only possible for a women and man to adopt, that would end the chance of a child having half a dozen fathers or mothers. I always liked the term step mother or step father. I suppose it's my up bringing and my religious belief that we are supposed to honor our father and mother. I don't believe it says honor our fathers and mothers! Although some of you might argue that in some species the male can become the mother or visa versa if one sex becomes non existent or hard to find. I hope that doesn't happen in the human species but if it does and you're are able to produce a child on your own you're able to take care of the child on your own.
From now on, my little fishie's are swimming down the toilet!!!
SHAME ON KANSASS.. A real game changer...
SURPRISED??? NOT EVEN!!!