• Kansas snubs lesbian co-parent in Craigslist sperm donor case, attorneys say

    In 2009, William Marotta donated sperm, free of charge, to a lesbian couple. Though Marotta 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.

    By Jeff Black, Staff Writer, NBC News

    A man who donated sperm to a pair of lesbians so they could start a family is now being hounded for child support by the state of Kansas — which refuses to recognize the same-sex coupling.

    But William Marotta's attorneys want the now-separated lesbian co-parent to be involved in a lawsuit in which the state claims he is the legal father of a 3-year-old girl.

    The state of Kansas contends that Marotta is legally responsible for the girl conceived after he responded to a Craigslist ad placed by the lesbian couple for sperm donation.

    Kansas is seeking some $6,000 in back child support.


    The ad was placed by Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauer more than three years ago with the idea that Marotta, a married mechanic  from Topeka, would not be involved in the child’s life or bear any responsibility for her upbringing.

    Marotta even signed a contract waiving parental rights and responsibilities — which he thought absolved him from any financial obligations for the child.

    In fact, he didn’t even accept the $50 payment offered from Schreiner, who gave birth to the girl, and Bauer, Schreiner’s partner at the time.

    The state of Kansas, however, sees it differently. The Sunflower State contends that the contract is invalid because a Kansas law requires that a licensed physician perform any artificial insemination — which was not the case with Schreiner.

    Only Marotta and the birth mother, Schreiner, are party to the suit.

    This week, attorneys for Bauer and Marotta asked a judge to reconsider a ruling that keeps Bauer out of the case as a full-fledged participant.

    Bauer, they argue, who cares for the girl about half the time and signed the sperm donor agreement at issue, should be fully involved.

    “The human beings in this case want all the adults in the case to make a determination for what is in the best interest of the child,” Joseph Booth, an attorney representing Bauer, told NBC News. 

    Booth said a recent Kansas high court case, Frazier v. Gouschaal, established that a nonbiological mother of children in a same-sex relationship has the same rights as a biological mother.

    “The only basis to prevent Angela Bauer from the full status as a party is that she is female,” Booth wrote.

    Benoit Swinnen, Marotta’s attorney, filed a similar motion on Tuesday seeking to make Bauer a “necessary party” or dismiss the case.

    Swinnen claims the whole case is political, since neither of the lesbian parents has sought Marotta’s involvement and the money involved is “peanuts.”

    “(The state) will do anything to push their traditional notion of families and suppress any nontraditional type of parenting,” Swinnen told NBC News. “It runs so contrary to the way the country is going.”

    Swinnen’s Shawnee County District Court filing said Bauer should be allowed to intervene in the case and be recognized as the legal parent of the girl, not his client.

    Schreiner as the birth parent has custody of the girl, but according to both attorneys Bauer takes care of the girl during the day with Schneiner caring for her in the evenings. Bauer and Scheiner have even drawn up a parenting plan for the girl, which Booth said, if and when it is approved by a court, would legally resolve issues of custody and financial support.

    The state became involved in the case when the couple's relationship fell apart and the two broke up, and one of them got sick. They applied for state health insurance for the girl. The Kansas Department for Children and Families demanded they reveal the name of the sperm donor, which they eventually did, reluctantly.

    The state then filed the child support claim against Marotta in October 2012.

    Angela de Rocha, the communication director for Kansas’ DCF, wasn’t immediately available to comment on this week's filings, but in January she explained Kansas’ rationale for the lawsuit:

    “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 statute to establish paternity and then pursue child support from the non-custodial parent,” Rocha said in a statement.

    On Tuesday, District Court Judge Mary Mattivi appointed Jennifer Berger, a family law attorney, to represent Jennifer Schreiner.

    Related: Hey, sperm donor, don't answer that Craigslist ad!

  • Powerball winner resolves $29,000 debt for unpaid child support

    Pedro Quedaza, an immigrant who came to New Jersey 26 years ago, accepted his $338 million Powerball jackpot Tuesday, saying he'll use the money to care for his family. NBC's Brian Williams reports.

    By Craig Giammona, Writer, NBC News

    Powerball multi-millionaire Pedro Quezada appeared in a New Jersey courtroom on Monday and resolved a $29,000 debt for unpaid child support dating back to 2009.


    Quezada, a New Jersey bodega owner whose lucky numbers won him $338 million last week, appeared before a New Jersey superior court judge in Paterson at 1:30 p.m.

    A child support warrant against Quezada was temporarily stayed Saturday, a spokesman for the Passaic County Sheriff’s office confirmed to NBC News.

    The sheriff's office said last week that Quezada was subject to arrest on the outstanding warrant and that they were "attempting to notify Mr. Quezada about the issue in an effort to have it resolved in a timely manner."

    It is unclear which of Quezada’s five children are supposed to be covered by the payments. Quezada claimed a lump sum payment of $221 million, or about $152 million after taxes, last week. Authorities have said the state's Lottery Division typically satisfies child support judgments before paying out winnings.

    Quezada is originally from the Dominican Republic and has lived in the United States for 26 years.

    A friend of Quezada's told the Daily News that the lottery winner has offered to pay rent for residents of the Passaic neighborhood where his bodega is located for "at least a month or two months."

    He told reporters at a press conference Tuesday that he felt "pure joy" about his lottery win and would use a share of his windfall to help his family.

  • Hey, sperm donor, don't answer that Craigslist ad!

    In 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.

    By Elizabeth Chuck, Staff Writer, NBC News

    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:

    Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook


  • Judge's unusual order to man with nine kids: Stop procreating

    Racine County Sheriff's Department

    Corey Curtis, 44, was sentenced to three years of probation on Monday with the condition that he is not to procreate until he
    can support the nine children he fathered with six women.

    By Andrew Mach, Staff Writer, NBC News

    A Wisconsin judge has ordered a man who owes $90,000 in child support after fathering nine children with six women to not have any more kids, at least for now.

    Racine County Circuit Court Judge Tim Boyle sentenced Corey Curtis, 44, to three years of probation on Monday with the condition he is not to procreate until he shows he can support his children, according to court documents.

    Curtis pleaded no contest in October to one count each of felony bail jumping and failure to pay child support.

    Assistant District Attorney Rebecca Sommers said Curtis owes about $50,000 in back child support, plus another $40,000 in interest to the mothers, the Journal Times reported.

    “Common sense dictates you shouldn’t have kids you can’t afford,” Racine County Circuit Court Judge Time Boyle said at a hearing, according to the Journal Times. “It’s too bad the court doesn’t have the authority to sterilize.”

    In his decision, the judge cited a 2001 case in which Wisconsin Supreme Court justices upheld a Court of Appeals ruling that a judge may, as a condition of a person’s probation, order the defendant not to have another child unless he can show financial viability.

    Curtis told local station WDJT-TV he planned to comply with the unusual order in his case. 


    "Judges, they make rulings," Curtis said. "They make them kind of hastily. So, if that's what he feels one of my conditions should be then I'm going to abide by it."

    This isn't the first time a judge has made a ruling intended to block breeding.

    A Kentucky judge in March ordered a man who had fathered a dozen children by 11 women to refrain from having “any sexual intercourse” for the one-to five-year period he’s on parole.

    A Texas judge in 2008 sentenced a 20-year-old mother to 10 years probation for not protecting her 19-month-old daughter from abuse by the child's father. The judge ordered her to not get pregnant during her probation.

    More content from NBCNews.com:

    Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook