• 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!

  • Florida judge approves birth certificate listing three parents

    By Kevin Gray, Reuters

    MIAMI - A Florida judge has approved the adoption of a 22-month-old baby girl that will list three people as parents on her birth certificate -- a married lesbian couple and a gay man.

    The decision ends a two-year paternity fight between the couple and a friend of the women who donated his sperm to father the child but later sought a larger role in the girl's life.

    The ruling means the child's birth certificate will include a biological father and both women as parents in an unusual arrangement approved recently by a Miami-Dade Circuit Court judge.

    The women, Maria Italiano, 43, and Cher Filippazzo, 38, had made several unsuccessful attempts to become parents using fertility clinics.


    They then turned to Italiano's hair dresser, Massimiliano Gerina, and asked if he would provide his sperm for artificial insemination.

    "When push came to shove, they figured he would understand the situation," said Kenneth Kaplan, an attorney for the women.

    "The mistake they made, however, was there should have been a written document spelling out what his rights and responsibilities were going to be."

    According to Filippazzo, the three reached a verbal agreement before Italiano became pregnant. Filipazzo said the agreement meant she would adopt the baby and the two women, a longtime couple, would raise the child together.

    But shortly before the baby was born, Gerina decided he wanted to be considered a parent and not a sperm donor. The women disagreed. Under Florida law, sperm donors have no legal rights to children.

    Gerina hired a lawyer, setting off nearly two years of legal wrangling.

    Under the judge's decision, the two women will have sole parental rights, although Gerina will be allowed to visit the child. He will not be expected to provide child support.

    "We're trying to do the right thing for Emma," Filippazzo said. "We want Emma to have it all, and we believe by doing it this way, including him in a birthday or Thanksgiving, it'll be a nice addition for her."

    "We believe the best interest for Emma is for him to have a role in her life, but not as a parent," she said. "The role is this is mommy's good friend who helped your moms have you because they wanted you so badly."

    Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.

  • 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


  • Kansas demands that sperm donor pay child support

    By NBC staff and wire services

    A 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:

    Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook