Child support claim rankles sperm donor to lesbian couple

KANSAS CITY, Kansas (Reuters) - A Kansas man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple so they could have a child said on Wednesday he is shocked the state is now trying to make him pay child support.

William Marotta, 46, donated sperm to Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauer under a written agreement that he would not be considered the father of the child nor liable for child support. A daughter, now 3, was born to Schreiner.

But in October, the state of Kansas filed a petition seeking to have Marotta declared the father of the child and financially responsible for her after the couple encountered money difficulties.

Marotta will ask the court in a hearing January 8 to dismiss the claim, which centers on a state law that the sperm must be donated through a licensed physician in order for the father to be free of any later financial obligations. Marotta gave a container of semen to the couple, who found him on Craigslist, instead of donating through a doctor or clinic.

The case is seen as having repercussions for other sperm donors. Sperm banks routinely provide sperm to people who want to conceive a child on the understanding that the donors are not responsible for the children.

Kansas is seeking child support from Marotta, including about $6,000 in medical expenses related to the child's birth, according to its petition.

"This was totally unexpected," Marotta said in a phone interview. "The very first thing that went through my mind was that no good deed goes unpunished."

The case has attracted national attention. Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said Wednesday "it is unfortunate and unfair" that Kansas is seeking money from a sperm donor.

"It certainly might have a negative effect on other men's willingness to help couples who need a donor, which would be harmful to everyone," Minter said.

"I also think it undermines everyone's respect for the law when you see it operate so arbitrarily."

Kansas officials are required under the law to determine the father of a child when someone seeks state benefits, said Angela de Rocha, spokeswoman for the Department for Children and Families. The couple was compelled to provide that information, which led to investigation of the sperm donation.

Marotta should be declared the father and subject to financial claims because he donated the sperm directly to the women and not through a physician, as required by Kansas law, the state's petition states.

Marotta said he's had virtually no contact with the child, but that he and Schreiner have remained cordial. He said she was pressured by the state to provide his name as the sperm donor.

"To me, ethics need to override rules," he said.

Lawyers for Marotta argue that he had no parental rights because of his agreement with the couple and cannot be held financially responsible.

They cite a 2007 case in which the Kansas Supreme Court ruled against a sperm donor seeking parental rights because he did not have any such agreement with the mother, lawyers for Marotta said.

"So now, we are flipping the argument around," Marotta attorney Ben Swinnen said Wednesday.

If the father had no legal parental rights in the 2007 case, Marotta should be declared to have no parental obligations in the current case, Swinnen said.

Marotta, a race car mechanic, responded to an ad on Craigslist from someone offering to pay $50 for sperm donations, but he made the donation for free. Marotta said he and his wife have no children of their own but have fostered a daughter. Marotta said he was simply trying to help a couple wanting a child.

Alan Smithee wrote:"The very first thing that went through my mind was that no good deed goes unpunished."

Yep. This isn't like giving away a puppy. It really sucks that the Kansas is doing this but all parties concerned should have had a lawyer. I hope he wins too but don't hold your breath.

Ppl do not realize that old laws never keep up with new technology.

When I was a young man in Louisiana they were still under some Napoleonic code that said no matter who provided the sperm the baby in a marriage was the husband's child. Or, if his mistress gave birth to his baby, it had bastard rights to his estate. This was before the advent of DNA testing so maybe they came out of the 18th century by now. (There is still one baby from 1968 who coulda been her husband's or mine - but me and the Frenchy looked similar so who knew?)

But, all men donating their sperm to a Lesbian couple for 'turkey baster' insemination should know that there is no agreement, written or otherwise that supecedes state laws on parental rights or responsibility. In other words, if the sperm donor of such child decided to take an interest in that child, he would also have rights as the birth father by most state laws, despite any written agreement otherwise.

It is sad that ppl do not know this when helping out a friend. That is why sperm donor banks are the only legal way to remain anonymous and covered under state law.

Shale wrote:




When I was a young man in Louisiana they were still under some Napoleonic code that said no matter who provided the sperm the baby in a marriage was the husband's child.

Kanye was a proud father on Sunday night when he announced that he and girlfriend Kim Kardashian are expecting a baby, but he'd have to do more than claim her as his "baby mama" for the state of California.

As TMZ's noted, in the eyes of the state's Family Code, Kardashian's estranged husband, Kris Humphries, is presumed to be the father of her baby because the two are still legally married. Kardashian filed for divorce in October 2011 after 72 days of marriage, but it's not yet official.

A man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if he is or has been married to the mother, and if the baby is born during the marriage or within 300 days after death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, divorce or after a judgment of separation is entered by the court.

Humphries filed for an annulment and separation from Kardashian on December 1, 2011, but a judgment of separation hasn't been granted, making him the presumed dad. Anyone involved can clear up the paternity with "clear and convincing" evidence, such as a DNA test.