E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn 2009, William Morotta donated sperm, free of charge, to a lesbian couple. Though Morotta signed a contract giving up financial responsibility for the child, the state of Kansas is now suing him for support after one of the mothers applied for financial assistance. NBC's Michelle Franzen reports.
A man who responded to an online ad for sperm and now faces thousands of dollars in child support is living proof of the dangers of donating outside of a sperm bank.
"The biggest piece of advice is just to not do it," said Ashley Nicole Reeve, a Texas-based attorney practicing in family law and reproductive technology law. "I don't know that there is any sure way legally to protect yourself."
With reproductive technology advancing more quickly than the law that governs it, donors who go through less-than-official channels can find themselves in a gray area when it comes to child support.
"The medical technology really has gone further than what the law has protected at this point. People are using sperm donors and egg donors and surrogates more and more, and the law really hasn't caught up just yet," she said.
Just ask William Marotta, a married 46-year-old mechanic from Topeka, Kansas, who is being asked by the state to pay $6,000 in child support after he donated sperm to a couple in his town.
Marotta had a contract absolving him of parental responsibility and says he has no contact with the child, but because he donated his sperm outside of a licensed institution, the state has gotten involved.
"No good deed goes unpunished," Marotta told TODAY. "With what I know now, I don't think I would have been the sperm donor."
Marotta replied to a Craigslist ad in 2009 from a local couple who said they wanted to find a sperm donor. They were offering $50. After discussing it with his wife, Marotta volunteered, turning down the cash Jennifer Schreiner and her partner, Angela Bauer, were offering in exchange.
Marotta signed a written agreement that relinquished him of 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,” according to The Topeka Capital-Journal.
Schreiner became pregnant with the sperm, and she and Bauer -- who are not married because Kansas does not recognize same-sex unions -- co-parented the baby girl. Child support only came up when the two women broke off their relationship, one of them got sick, and they applied for state services for the girl. The Kansas Department for Children and Families demanded they tell them the donor's name, which Schreiner and Bauer eventually gave, reluctantly.
The state filed a child-support claim for more than $6,000 against Marotta this past October.
"We never intended for him to financially support her. That was our responsibility as her two parents," Bauer told TODAY on Thursday. "I have the joy of raising her and loving her every single day and it’s because of William that I have that."
"This is not at all what we signed up for," Marotta's wife, Kimberly, told TODAY.
But according to the Kansas Department of Children and Families, it's exactly what they signed up for when Marotta artificially inseminated Schreiner in her house.
“In cases where the parties do not go through a licensed physician or a clinic, there remains the question of who actually is the father of the child or children. In such cases, DCF is required by statue to establish paternity and then pursue child support from the non-custodial parent,” Angela de Rocha, director of communications, said in a statement.
Ben Swinnen, whose Topeka firm will represent Marotta at his Jan. 8 hearing, said Marotta has no way to pay for the child support costs, never mind his unexpected legal fees.
"The cost of defending him is way beyond his means. The issue is way beyond him and the cost is way beyond his means. It goes much further than his particular case and it costs much more than he can afford," Swinnen said.
Swinnen said his client doesn't have any contact with the daughter who was born. As for the contract Marotta signed at the time of his donation, Swinnen said, "It appears to me like it was found on the Internet by the two women, but I cannot confirm that. It's just my assumption," he said.
Sperm banks typically protect donors through state parenting shield laws, but less straightforward cases have arisen in the past:
- In 2007, Ronnie Coleman of an Arlington, Texas, agreed to donate sperm to a sperm bank for a friend, but told her he didn't want to be the father to any child who was born, according the Texas Star-Telegram. Yet in 2008, the mother filed a paternity suit against him, forcing him to pay thousands in child support until an appeals court ruled four years later that even though the donor was known to the mother, she shouldn't force him to pay.
- 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. One of the mothers told 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. The court was able to nail him when they found he 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Swinnen admits his client should have thought through his decision a bit more before proceeding.
"Hindsight is 20/20. He could have consulted a lawyer, explored the legal implications," he said.
NBC's Isolde Raftery contributed to this report.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Sandy Hook students return: New principal, new building, old desks
- Cheered by colleagues, senator who suffered stroke takes 45 monumental steps
- Undocumented students can receive aid under new California Dream Act
- Video: Camera captures ATM smash-and-grab robbery
- The angels had NY accents, says senator who had stroke
- Stolen packages returned after thief is caught on video
Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Who knows? They may eventually find out that Pope Benedict, who [purportedly] never has sex, has more than 20 biological children in any case, due to advertising himself as a sperm donor on Craigslist under a user alias.
Next time you have a thought ...... let it go.
The state is absolutely wrong to do this. This man has no relationship with the child. He simply answered an ad and helped out a lesbian couple by donating sperm. He has in no way maintained any contact or relationship with the lesbian couple or the child and should not be forced to pay support. If he were involved in the child's life it would be a different matter, but in this case he should not be forced to support the kid.
The problem is, they are seeking public assistance for the "family." If they were totally taking care of all financial problems that arise on their own, the biological father wouldn't be required to pay child support. However, since they want public assistance, the state has every right to make the man responsible for fathering the child, pay child support. Look at it this way, society didn't father the child, so why should public funds go towards taking care of it?!?
When they OKed same sex marriage I said the lawyers will love it. You'll see more crazyer cases in the future like this.
Pope Benedict doesn't have any children. That is unless a 13 year old boy can become impregnated by immaculate conception.
It ain't ok in Kansas. Please read more carefully.
Since he's being charged for it, he should keep the child. The blade cuts both ways when in the hands of morons.
Kansas, proves once again it is the dumbest state in the union.
.
Does this mean heterosexual couples that used a sperm donor can sue them for child support?
United States - wouldn't you like to see Kansas and Mississippi square off? Haha, his comment combined with yours had me laughing for a good minute!
Matte is a lot cloudier.
When I was a young man in the 60's, all sperm donors had to pay child support.
The sperm donor was never part of the family.
The person responsible for "fathering" the child was whoever placed the sperm in the mother. Are you sure it was a man?
If I give you a lawn mower, am I responsible for mowing your lawn?
Leave it to Kansas....
This was absolutely the correct outcome. Why should the tax payers have to pick up the cost of child support? You have all of these people that seem to think they can have a child because "they want one" and if things don't work out someone else has to step in and pay for the support of the child. The idea that because he signed some contract with these women he is absolved of support holds no water at all since the support is coming from the tax payers of the state. I think this should be the outcome in EVERY situation where a child is produced from a donor. People need to be held accountable for their actions and if those actions produce a child then they have to support it if it winds up on the government dole.
Darn good question, there.
Oxymoron?
How about this idea: If someone can't support their child(ren), put the kids in orphanages or group homes until such time as the parent(s) can meet their obligations. And don't give money to the parents in the meantime. That would have the double advantage of (1) stopping the for-the-dole baby factories, and (2) create jobs for the kids' providers.
And who is going to pay for that?
The same people that are paying for welfare and ADC now. Although the payments might be less if we get group rates.
You have no idea how much it costs to institutionalize child care.
http://www.in.gov/dcs/files/SurveyFindingsReport081611.pdf
This is foster care, and it doesn't include the cost of maintaining a structure (home) or medical. If you talk to almost anyone who has done foster care, the state allowances seldom ever cover the full cost of fostering a child.
And BTW, ADC no longer exists. The progam is now TANF.
cummmmm on .
People may view this as unfair, however, it is the law. The sperm donor failed to go through proper channels according to existing state law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse under the law. His contract with the women is still in effect regarding the contents. His obligation for child support is to the state of Kansas.
This has no bearing on children resulting from sperm donors who went through the legal channels as established by Kansas law.
If more states were as aggressive in tracking down the father (sperm donor) of children on government assistance as Kansas, perhaps there would be a lower cost to the taxpayers. Being responsible for one's actions...what a concept.
WRONG. Your ignorance is no excuse, either -- you should have done some research. The law does not say that the procedure must be performed by a physician.
Talking out of your ass -- what a concept!
"The donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor's wife is treated in law as if he were not the birth father of a child thereby conceived, unless agreed to in writing by the donor and the woman," according to the Kansas Parentage Act of 1994.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/sperm-donor-sued-child-support-article-1.1232394#ixzz2H4DwNapK
10 other states have a similar law, including California, Illinois and Missouri.
You are correct that it does state that a doctor does not have to perform the insemination. What the law states is that the donor can only clear his obligations by going through a licensed physician.
Reading comprehension is a fundamental concept.
And you would do well to cultivate some.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/attorney-kansas-law-sperm-donors-outdated-18123416#.UOeeJHfNmSo
BTW, 9 states have a law saying that a sperm or egg donor is NOT the parent of a child conceived artificially.
(f) The donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor's wife is treated in law as if he were not the birth father of a child thereby conceived, unless agreed to in writing by the donor and the woman.
This is from the actual law written.
Because the donor of semen failed to provide his specimen to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination, he is not protected under the law.
I don't agree with the law, but it is the law. There are many laws that need to be rewritten. Like the law that allowed a rapist to go free because the victim wasn't married.
Really? That's what the focus is? Not the State of Kansas' screwed up system? He signed a legally binding contract and gave up any rights to the child. He is not the legal parent of the child in question. However, the lesbian who adopted her IS, but does not have to pay child support when her and her lover split up? The state goes BACK to the sperm donor and demands support?????????
Send the non-custodial gal parent to jail if she won't fulfill her financial obligation to her child. That's what happens to deadbeat dads.
Too bad people refuse to acknowledge that two moms is actually a thing. I agree, if they want to go after anyone for no child support, it should be the other parent. Not the sperm donor who signed away his rights to the child.
The lesbian cannot adpot by Kansas law, and Does support the child. This is being pursued by the State of Kansas which is a backward, braindead pack of @!$%#s and wingnuts.
The lesbian actually can adopt by Kansas law, and did. This wasn't their only child, according to the article on Fox News yesterday (Fox beat you to the scoop, NBC. Ouch).
Lesbians use Craigs List to find sperm donors? Why not just cruise the bars, find a nice looking guy, take him back to your place, and let him do you?
Uh, because lesbians don't like penises? I thought that was a rather obvious thing...
Washington State got this right. Gay marriage is legal and child support only applies if there is an explicit signed contract.
But lesbians like Crag's List? Look, you wanna have a baby? Get fu ck ed.
The state of Kansas did NOT sign that "legally binding contract", so why should they be held to it. You can't sign away someone else's rights without their consent, particularly a state's right. The state had a process for donating sperm without parental obligations, and the parties failed to follow this process.
I'm sure you apply that same "philosophy" to infertile opposite-sex couples, too, because you're not a hypocrite, are you?
/s
I dunno Erin, I do know this, if you want to have a baby, you get a man to put his penis in your pussy. This is how it is done. I'm serious. No hypocrite. I have been party to this. Not being a hypocrite here.
Doesn't that sound better than Craigs List? So impersonal. When a woman gets pregnant, there should be a man. And his penis. And a bed. And a smoke afterwards. We've been doing this for centuries. I am not being a hypocrite.
Some women think this feels good. Eriin, help me out on this one, does a lesbian feel good when a penis, or a deivce shaped like a penis, is inserted in the lesbian's vagina? Or, you know, does it not feel good?
Really, davey? Is THAT how it's done? Having given birth to three children -- and ALL of them were "immaculate conceptions" -- I wouldn't know.
I don't think that's YOUR decision to make for everyone else.
I wouldn't know that, either, davey, since I'm a straight, married woman -- but how like an ignorant bigot to ASSume that I'm gay because I support equality.
I still want to know, and Erin, you annoying heterosexual, if you don't know, then don't answer, do less beans like it when a thingie is in their wet spot? I have to think that a less bean likes it when there is something in there. Do less beans finger theyselves?
C'mon, now that we know Erin from New Joisey (which exit??) likes a man's touch, let's hear from the less beans. Do you like it when something goes into your bagina? Does it bring a smile to your face?
I can answer that Davey...been married before and now with a woman.
It really all depends on the lesbian. Some like penetration, others do not care for it much. I know some of both, and i will stop you before you ask the next dumbass question, its none of your business what i prefer...BUT Good dexterity is a bonus...
And Davey, I will add....I have a nice tube for you. Pull your head out so I can insert it and drain the @!$%# you are so full of.
You know, there are probably heterosexual women who do not like pentration either. So, if there are lesbian women who enjoy getting fu ck ed, those women can save themselves a lot of time and effort, if they want to conceive. Instead of going to all the time and trouble of artificial insemination, they can just have normal sex, and get pregnant. If they miss the first time, they can just keep on doing it, until they conceive.
Getting yourself artificially inseminated has to be a bit of a bother, yes? How does that work? Does a guy squirt into a plate or something, and then the less bean scoops it up in some kind of specially made semen spoon, and then ladles it in? In that situation, does the lesbo at least 'give the guy a hand'? Or, does the lesbo sit on the other side of the room and say, 'tell me when you're done'?
Very interesting. I guess in that situation, there are not many 'positions'.
Hey Mom, so, you've been with a man and with a woman. Wow, you are a player.
Actually Davey, you missed the point completely of what being a lesbian is...it's more about the emotional connection first, sexual attraction second. And yes some lesbian women like penetration, but with a FEMALE partner. Sex with a man is nasty and they want no part of being emotional with a man.
So Davey, imagine you had to have sex with another man...quit salivating, I'm trying to make a point here.
Suppose you were attracted to WOMEN but had sex with a man (quit salivating I told you).... Sound disgusting to you, well that is what conceiving a child by sex with a man would be, totally NASTY, GROSS! PUKE !
Yes there are a few that may concieve this way, but most lesbians prefer to keep the balls and penis as far away as possible. Artificial insemination is a much cleaner, neater, less nasty way.
And not a player, just found what I was finally looking for. Committed relationship. No you and your boyfriend can't watch, but Peter and Richard might let you join them.....
Now go back to your boyfriend and finish the job, but wipe your chin off when youre done. Hate for your to get a Monika Lewinsky stain on your clean work shirt.
Yeah, I did completely miss the point of lessbianhood. Hey girls, have all the emotional connections that you want. Far be it from me to limit or prescribe to you, your emotional connections. Be emotional, have connections. I promise, I won't intefere with you.
The only way to conceive a child is with a man. The question is, how do you want it, baby? You want it direct, no chance of spillage, or do you want someone to phone it in? I say, put that penis in your vagina. Take your clue from millions of years of human evolution, for how people conceive. It's natural!! Get in touch with your inner caveman. Yes, sex is messy!
Aw, but I understand. The risk is that the guy will decide that he wants to be a father to the chid. That would be awkward. Oh well, what can I say, it's not easy being a lesbian.
The only reason Kansas is doing this is to target gays and lesbians. What would happen if it were a heterosexual couple who, after conceiving a child through a sperm donor, fell on hard times and had to request medicaid or food stamps. Would Kansas being suing that sperm donor......doubtful.
Cult- nope, because they could list whoever they wanted as the father on the birth certificate. They don't exactly do DNA tests at the delivery. Now, if Kansas found out that a hetero couple used a donor without a bank, then yes, they'd go after the donor.
Kansas is claiming that not using a licensed facility makes the agreement between the sperm donor and the lesbian couple null and void, but Kansas law has no statute stating this.
geez, the couple doesn't know how to lie?? "IDK who the father is now gimme food stamps or we starve." I'm sure there are many, many 'sperm donors' out there who don't pay a dime in CS because their baby mama's never put his name on the birth certificate or want nothing to do with him. I think the state is being cheap. Would rather go after the sperm donor than give out aid to a lesbian... go fig.
Its Kansas....now ask yourself what the true intent of making a public spectacle of this situation is? Could it be to scare any other potential doners since Kansas, as a whole, probably doesnt approve of this type of behavior, i.e. anything that relates to anything other than a man and a woman in wedlock having a child.
Some airline pilots refuse to fly over Kansas because the state might be bewitched.
Ironic that his load is now his burden
This sperm donor is an IDIOT and a moron. He got what he deserved. The child will not be that bright either. He got $50 for his troubles and an approval from his wife. WTF? Is this world finally gone crazzzzzzyyyyy? There are millions of children that need a loving home that could be adopted and we do nothing. These gays and lesbians are bunch of self centered MORONS also. It is not enough for them to have a legal union , now they want to dabble in children production. I hope god smites all of them some day and i am sure they know they are going one way to HELL. Christ has risen!!!! Indeed he has risen!!!!
It would all be good, except the couple split up, and now is on welfare. The state has to pay it, so they are looking to be paid back in any may they can. Perhaps rather then blame the gay people, blame the people on welfare.
what happened to only God may sit in judgment? SRBINAT - are you God?
"smite"?? Really....wow.
@SRBINAT:
I hope God smites you for writing His name from lowercase.
The man did not take the fifty dollars which you would know if you were intelligent enough to get the facts before you spout your keyboard snot.
They also have multiple adopted children alongside the one that this man fathered.
Wow!!! SRBINAT; Because of so many religiously wonderful people like you, I quit religion years ago! I hope you didn't reproduce!
S.R.B.I.N.A.T. = Self Righteous Barbaric Inbred Naivete A$$hole Tightwad
SRBINAT...I am in hell right now cause I actually read your dumb ass comment.
ROFLMAO too funny thanks for making my day lol
Damn this just gave every dope that hadnt thought of it before, the idea.
This is just downright silly.To think he should pay,ladies pay for your own child,get a better job,do something but do not expect the man that helped you have a child to now support her.
The ladies in question support the sperm donor. It's the state of Kansas that's going after the man.
Also, one of the women has a serious long-term illness. It's hard to get a better job when you're bedridden.
This has nothing to do with lesbians or gays wanting to be a family and have children. It has nothing to do with the Agreement he signed absolving his rights. It has everything to do with the couple breaking up and the State sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. Republicans want the state out of our lives except when it comes to abortion, taxes and anything that they can do to get money from all of us. It is politics. Plain and simple. He should not have to pay any child support at all. The two women wanted this child. It would be the same for a heterosexual couple who have a child that the one who does not have custody pay child support!!!! This is but just one more reason for gay marriage to be accepted in every state and federally. I feel for this guy....he signed up to help a lesbian couple have a child and when things went wrong in the relationship, one of them decides to give a 'tell-all' instead of just saying 'I don't know who the father is' and going after her partner in a civil suit. Sick or not, it doesn't matter. The burden is on the couple, not the sperm donor.
They would not have received benefits for the child if they had not told them the sperm donor's name, or they could have been charged for committing welfare fraud if they had lied and said they didn't know who the father was and the state found out they did know.
I agree with pretty much everything else you said.
The state stuck their nose in when the couple applied for benefits, paid by the state. Up to that point, the state didn't care much one way or the other. But when asking the state to give you money every month, why should the state not ask that the person actually fathering the child be responsible also?
except kansas has no business asking about the 'father'. the child has his two parents, right there. he gave the sperm, the guy is NOT the father. states need to start getting reconciled to these non-traditional families.
Lesbians who decide they don't need men, also don't need children. You can't have a child without a man, and they made their choice. This guy was a rube, for getting mixed up with them. He actually deserves everything that is happening to him.
And I'm sure you apply that "philosophy" to single straight women who want children but don't want husbands, right, because you're not a hypocrite, are you?
/s
What does having children have to do with being straight or gay?
The state of Kansas isn't the only state that ask who the sperm provider is when someone ask for assistance. Most of the states do. States are hung up on who the "biological parents" are. They are interested in those who make the life, support the life and not burden the taxpayers. This isn't just a Kansas thing, it isn't a gay or straight thing, it isn't a witchhunt.
It simply is that someone went around the overpriced insemination clinic to get cheap sperm (free in this case), the paperwork that was put together was not the correct paperwork required by the state. Going around proper channels is often cheaper on the front end and more expensive on the back.
This said, it is kinda BS that the state is going after him, but not inconsistent with what states have done in the past.
If the gals cannot pay for the child's support and by filing for state aid breached their contract with the father, then take the child away from them and give it to the father. If he has to pay, he should at least get the child.
The man who donated sperm does not want the child. To him, he is not her father and she is not his child. The state of Kansas needs to catch up to the twenty-first century.
Marie, try getting your facts straight.
If the twenty first century is a place where people can create children with no regard to their future, who can just absolve themselves of any responsibility for the lives they help create, then maybe the state of Kansas has the right idea. We need to have people start being more responsible for their children and stop just assuming the state will take care of them.
Jennilee, if you had actually READ THE ARTICLE, you would know that the couple had no intention of "assuming the state will take care of" their children -- one was staying at home to take care of the children, while the other one worked. However, the one who had a job is now very ill, and cannot work.
YOU are living proof that we need to have people get themselves educated.
I am educated enough to understand the sentence that states public assistance was applied for, so it seems, whether they intended it or not, that is just what they are doing. I also understood the part in the article that states that if they do not go through a licensed doctor or clinic, the state would do exactly as the statute demands, which is to go after child support from the donor. Maybe if they had educated themselves on Kansas law, instead of trying to go around it, they would not be in this situation.
And maybe if YOU had educated yourself on Kansas law, you would not appear to be so uneducated. Apparently the Kansas statute does not specify that a doctor MUST perform the insemination; it only states that the donor is not the father if a doctor does it -- which does not address the donors' rights and obligations when no doctors are involved, as often happens.
...and now to watch all the people who want to use this as ammo to bash the gay and impoverished without even reading the article.
I guess it is okay for you to bash the bashers, though.
Actually, Mark, it is.
Bashing bashers is a hobby of mine.
No sympathy for folk too short-sighted to read a short article before mouthing off.
Any couple who has to go through backdoor channels and can only afford $50 to bring a child into this world should NOT be parents, and this guy should have been more responsible about who he gives his "seed" to.
Pet adoption agencies run their potential clients through a much more exhaustive vetting process than a mere Craigslist ad, and meanwhile this guy just donates sperm to whoever asks for it. Pet breeders are more responsible than this guy.
I was sympathetic to his predicament until I learned he did this outside the system. Now I have no sympathy at all.
The couple tried to go through "reputable" channels, only to have one of woman's doctors refuse to sign a statement saying she and her partner were good parents, even though they had foster children given to them by the state, because he disapproves of homosexuals.
Any person can have a kid without passing through any barriers unless they want to adopt or use a fertility clinic. If I wanted to I could have a kid right now with a random low-quality guy. I can barely afford rent at the moment, yet nobody is stopping me from being able to reproduce except myself and my chosen mate.
Pet adoption AGENCIES do that. People who's cat had kittens and they need to get rid of them? They don't have to do background checks. I know a family who really shouldn't be allowed to have any pets who just got a new kitten. Nobody stopped them, they got the kitten off Craigslist. And it's not like they fell on hard economic times AFTER adopting the kitten either.
Barry I actually agree with you. I feel bad for this man because he clearly had NO idea what he got himself into. But that's what lawyers are for - he should have consulted with one before he did this. He should have had one review the contract he signed. We aren't talking about the sale of a dog here, it's a HUMAN LIFE. That's kind of a big deal and he should have taken it more seriously. Now these women have this baby - because of him - and the baby is receiving government assistance. It should be both of the mothers' responsibility ultimately, but I'd say the sperm donor is next in line here because why should all of US be responsible for this baby? I didn't donate any sperm. According to another source these women already had 8 children so I don't even know why this donor felt so bad for them that he agreed to donate his sperm for free to help them out. I'm tired of paying for other people's stupidity. Maybe that's harsh, but it's how I feel. People need to think before they act.
Barry,
Would you propose the same limitations on heterosexual couples? Heterosexual couples unable to afford 5 cents but still have all the capabilities to bring a life into this world, they shouldn't be parents? How do you plan to enforce these limitations?
At least someone who has a dog they are trying to find someone to adopt will at least visit the home beforehand. And I'll bet they wouldn't leave a dog with these two poor and nasty lesbians who wanted to play house. They didn't even have a strong relationship to start with, and to think they would have gotten married if they were allowed.
How do you know they "didn't even have a strong relationship to start with"? It sounds like they were as committed to each other as many opposite-sex couples are.
@ Pragmatic
Yes, i would. Being a parent should be considered a privilage and a great responsibility. Not something you do just because you want to or because it helps you stay on wellfare.
The problem however is your last question: How do you enforce something like that? I do not think there is any way to enforce this that would avoid such massive public backlash that it would never actually get implemented.
But I would sure like to see people smarter than myself see if they could work out a solution.
This is symptomatic of the idiocy that occurs when the government is involved in every aspect of people's lives.
Time for common sense to be applied to law.
If the GOP is trying to sell me on small government, this is a really bad example of it in action.
This guy is just as much an idiot as the women are. The woman could have claimed it was a one night stand and she can not remember his name and he the donor didn't need to use his real name.
Let's see if I got this right:
1. Super creepy looking guy trolls Craigslist, a category we've never heard of before: Masturbation & Sperm gigs.
2. He finds some disgusting lesbian couple who are so determined to play house they are going on classified ad sites offering completely strangers pocket change for masturbating.
3. Man discusses this very tempting offer! with his equally-creepy wife, who says: Go for it.
4. Man signs "contract" with stranger lesbians, believing that he can contract away his duty to the state, even though any 1L knows there is no such thing as one person relinquishing another person of their duty to a 3rd person, not involved in the contract.
5. Man is now on national TV warning other would-be-craigslist-sperm-for-hire-masturbators (a completely non-existent category, we thought, until the Creepinator showed up!) of "HIS PLIGHT".
OMG. I have literally seen it all now. I can go to my maker in peace.
3 complete and utter idiots - no four. SO SORRY for the daughter that was brought into this world a bastard of bastards, and now also being world famous as...the cherry on top (pun accepted).
You seem to suffer from the same problem as the state. A profound lack of basic human compassion. I don't give a care what adults do behind closed doors. That's not for me to judge. Meanwhile there is a defenseless child who will suffer from this lack of compassion from a government entity unable to exercise even the most basic common sense.
If he had any compassion, he wouldn't have helped to crazy lesbians who wanted a child who would have no father. She is going to grow up a crazy lesbian just like her mother.
BP, of course you have conducted "studies" that prove your bull@!$%#?
Didn't think so.
Pragmatic:
Just the opposite.
First, compassion would be not bringing the girl into the world under an absurd, circus-like situation. Compassion would be bringing her up in a healthy family where she would have the chance at having a mother and father. Compassion is not making test tube babies in the first place. Compassion understands "do not commit" as much as "do good".
Second, how is what the state is doing affecting the daughter? The lesbian couple, predictably, are no longer a couple. But their little game they insisted on playing--thanks to folks like you--produced a real child, which they can no longer support. The state is trying to get the biological father to to pay for some of her needs. Good for them.
I'm somewhat at a loss to see how the state trying to help get the child the care it now needs, is somehow a "profound lack of compassion".
I read once that the sperm of single men was of higher quality than that of married men. I wondered why but soon realized, "Of course it would be. It's made by hand!"
I wanna know how he artifically inseminated her at her home.
There are home insemination kits.
Or do it the old-fashioned way, with a turkey baster. You might also try a squirt gun, or a garden sprayer. Don't be afraid to get creative.
Isn't it far simpler to do it the natural way? For all the trouble he is going through, I'll bet he wished he got a little action out of this.
If it was an "artificial" insemination in her home (i.e. a turkey baster kit), why was HE the one to do it? Maybe that's why he didn't take the money: "I'll tell you what, you can keep the fifty bucks if you let me do the honors..."
Never donate your sperm, PERIOD! Lesbians were never meant to make babies!!
Tell the state of Kansas to get fu'd!
i guess now that he has to pay he will also have parental rights and visitation. not to preach but when we deviate from Gods laws everything becomes dis-combobulated.
Had this been a heterosexual couple receiving the donated sperm, would you find the same fault with deviating from God's laws? It seems to me that the state is violating the desires of everybody involved to fulfill its own selfish interests. Genders are irrelevant.
Daddys little squirt, and mommas little yolk.
If it's his kid, then he should pay for the child. Just like they do in Australia, donors should have little or no protection from what their kids want to sue them for. Eggs and Sperm should be treated alike, if they don't want kids don't......
what's next, asking surrogate moms for support? egg donors? where to draw the line. the state is being absolutely absurd. the child in question has two parents, and the bio donor ain't one of them.
If a sperm donor can be liable for child support, why not the unwed mothers who gave up children for adoption over the last decades.