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:
The gay couple and the man should have understood the law before they went about their plan. Now they want to circumvent the law and make me John Q Public pay for their child.
Since the "sperm donation" wasn't done by a licensed physician I'm betting it was donated the old fashioned way. State laws don't protect "donations" of this kind so yes, I would agree with the state of Kansas for going after the biological father. Far better for him to pay for raising the child rather than the state!
The courts should not hold this man responsible..this is just what the gays and lesbians get..they know they cant procreate(without a member of the opposite sex..as man&woman can only produce a baby) as gay and lesbian is not what God intends for us to be..but so many people find there is nothing wrong with it..but then out pops this story and all the problems that go with this awfulness..its plain to see this is unnatural and plain just not right..make them work 2-3 jobs a piece to support this child or children and pay for her(their) own insurance..hey the way I see it..they'd sure go after the male and take him for every cent and then some..fair is fair..but also this man and others out there should never help anyone like this again..for fear of such stupidness and unrightousness..but all these states that are quick to pass that same sex marriage is ok..then they better be quick to make sure things like this doesnt happen again..if it does..hold the 2same sex parents responsible..You go after them to support these poor kids..and not anyone else..If these women are big enough to do things like this to these children then they should be big enough to pay the price..Kansas needs to leave this man alone..he's only guilty for falling for such nonsense in the first place..
So when a man and a woman are not able to have a child of their own, and get artificial semination, is this not also circumventing God's Will? After all, if God wanted them to reproduce, he would have made them so they could.
And nobody should ever have a debilitating illness or have a job loss due to circumstances beyond their control, right? Because nobody else but the parents should have to pay for those children, either. The parents should get those two or three jobs, no matter how sick they are. Or beg and hope for Christian charity.
The guy should not have to pay anything. The couple had this child; one of them has a serious illness, but the other doesn't; the other can get a job to support the family.
It's a shame to go after the donor, but one has to wonder just where along the way to accumulating EIGHT children did this donation occur? If you can't afford to raise children, don't have them, don't adopt them, and don't stick the taxpayers with the bill when you decide it's preferable to support two separate households with the same incomes that supported one.
Only one had the kid the other woman is not a biological part of the child but the donor is!
Now he is just paying the price for the devil's work!
It was probably too expensive to go to a sperm bank, to me a donation is a donation no matter if it was through an agency or acquaintance. This will is jsut another way to control insemination and raise the prices.
The article said it wasn't done by a licensed physician which means also that it didn't come from a sperm bank. I'm guessing it was "donated" the natural way. It makes a difference!
Well, no more sperm banks for me!!!
If this is the game they're going to play, it's in the kleenex, and down the toilet!!!
LOL Thumper, if a kleenex is the extent of your sex life, they probably don't want a donation from you!
You know what they say about good guys.. They finish in the shower. quote Charles Sheen
Actually if you were at a Food store and someone asked if you would scan your food card so they could get the store discounts and then had insufficient funds, the Food store can legally go after you. After all this fiscal cliff crap it sounds like the same thing.
When you look up "repressive" in the dictionary there is a picture of the map of Kansas.
Typical Progressive/Liberal operation. Two people take responsibility for more than they can handle and when the GOVERNMENT refuses to bail them out or tries to recoup their money it's the GOVERNMENT's fault. What were these two women thinking in the first place? Only thinking of themselves. Typical!
And it really makes me angry that Bush and the Regressive/Con Republicans assisted those Progressive/Lib Democrats with signing for that bailout. When all those banks and finance companies were racking up those big bonuses selling mortgages they knew people couldn't afford, coaching them on filling out those applications. Talk about lack of responsibility! Typical!
I guess that the news media just can't give up with putting stories about gays in the news Suprized they are not on TV News or the Today show!!! Were they married the lady who played the part of the man maybe should be paying child support!!!
I would have liked to READ this article, but there's a super annoying Pop Up ad right over the text in the middle of the page. Nice!
That would be FB working you.
To hell with helping people these days.
First off, the guy did NOT sleep with either of these women. He shouldn't even be considered.
Maybe Kansas should go after the institution that impregnated her, or the other half of the parents that left? Better yet, maybe the woman shouldn't get aid at all because she chose to have this baby, the 2nd mother or father disregarded, and she, the mother, shouldn't be eligable for state aid.
I feel sooo sorry for the child. He's innocent and he'll feel a lot of pain.
I cant believe they are wasting their time with this. If the states employees have that much free time then it sounds like a couple people need to get fired and then thay can focus on real problems.
And the solution is simple. He pays them and they send it right back to him.
where in the heck did they get the other 7 kids, and who is going to pay child support for these kids
Guess. You get two guesses and the first one doesn't count. Irritating isn't it? Now they'll spend millions of dollars in court over this mess.
That`s our country!
Kansas is wrong. the women in a gay marriage split, the only thing the guy provided was the "wigglers" to get one of the fruitcake females impregnated. now the state wants him to pay child support so they don't have to. crazy sick illogical and whatever other words in a similar vein you may want to add.
the "manliest" of the two should pay !!!
I thought Kansas was a farming state. You'd think they would understand the value of insemination and not want to discourage it!
Lets take away the issue that the parents are lesbian. Take the senario of the traditional couple where either the man or the woman is infertile. A donor assists the couple in having a child. They couple later breaks up or worse one dies. Now will the state go after the donor? If anyone is thinking of being a donor you better think again. After this I certainly would. This could have a profound impact on people needing a donor to have a child. Who as a donor would want to take a chance like this. Everyday I get more disgusted with government.
they should go after the turkey baster for support
She could have lied, just say I don`t know the guy, I met him at a bar for the purpose of getting pregnant and it worked.
This is a no brainer, the non-custodial parent has to pay child support. Gay and lesbians want the same treatment as straight folks, well here you go! The state is going after the wrong person! I hope somebody in the Kansas Department reads this and takes the appropriate action.
Why is it no one actually read the article? They don't want the state going after him!
My God how stupid can people get. They don't go after the sick bastards who deliberately impregnate girls as trophies. make the lazy lesbians go out and get jobs. They made a choice let them live with it.
This is government bureaucracy. There is no end on how stupid they can get! Just look at D.C.