Law Forum : SPERM DONOR MAY PAY CHILD SUPPORT!

Discussion in 'Law Forum - Prisons - Gun Ownership' started by Kemetstry, Oct 26, 2013.

?

IS THIS FAIR?

  1. Of course, he's the biological father

    25.0%
  2. No way!

    62.5%
  3. This is a tough one

    12.5%
  1. Kemetstry

    Kemetstry going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2001
    Messages:
    20,944
    Likes Received:
    5,245
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Chemist
    Location:
    Detroit
    Ratings:
    +6,128
    Kansas judge hears arguments in case of sperm donor sued for child support

    [​IMG]
    The Topeka Capital Journal via AP, file
    Kansas sperm donor William Marotta who is being sued by the state of Kansas to pay child support after providing sperm to a same-sex couple who split up.
    By Jim Doblin and Matthew DeLuca, NBC News
    A Kansas district court heard arguments Friday in the case of a man who is being sued for thousands of dollars in child support by the state after donating his sperm to a same-sex couple he found through a Craigslist ad.
    William Marotta, a mechanic, and his wife Kimberly are fighting the state’s contention that the man should be required to pay child support, arguing that a Kansas law requiring a licensed doctor to perform artificial insemination is antiquated.

    Marotta says he drew up a contract with the two female partners without a physician’s supervision. The agreement with the mother of the child and her partner said that Marotta would not assume parental obligations, the man said. The child is now almost four years old.
    Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Koziacki Mattivi heard a little over an hour of arguments from the state and Marotta’s attorney in Topeka on Friday.
    Both sides have asked the judge for a ruling without a full trial, and Mattivi is expected to hand down a ruling for “summary judgment” on the case within sixty days.
    The case began last fall, when Kansas sued Marotta, who does not dispute that he is the child’s biological father. He says that a move by the child’s attorney to obtain DNA evidence is a waste of time.
    That makes no difference, argued Timothy Keck, an attorney for the Kansas Department of Children and Families. The lawyer said that the couple, Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, used a catheter and syringe to impregnate Schreiner at home in 2009 without a physician present.
    “This is not a case about a sperm donor contract, it’s about child support,” Keck said on Friday. “[Marotta] cannot get out of his support obligations because he didn’t follow state law. The contract they drew up means nothing.”
    Bauer and Schreiner have separated since the artificial insemination, and have struggled financially because of an injury that left Schreiner unable to work. Marotta has said that he has seen the girl twice in her lifetime – once soon after her birth, and another time by coincidence at the Kansas State Fair. But he has never identified himself as her father, he said.

    “Mr. Marotta has never been involved in the child’s life,” the sperm donor’s attorney Benoit Swinnen said.
    The attorney said on Friday that the contract his client says he drew up with the couple was central to the case, and said the state was persecuting Marotta to send a message about traditional family values. Swinnen cited paternity cases in other states, and pointed to a recent Kansas Supreme Court ruling regarding the rights of same-sex parents.
    “Seeking only a male as a father is discriminating on the basis of gender,” Swinnen said.
    While the judge's ruling is expected before the end of the year, Marotta said after court on Friday that he expects the case to last at least 2 years, as Mattivi’s decision is likely to be appealed.


    .
     
  2. Angela22

    Angela22 Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    6,583
    Likes Received:
    2,894
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +3,317
    So had he followed state law, he'd not have this situation, is what's being stated. Okay then. Not gonna say it's "wrong" because, well, it's not like it isn't his child.
     
  3. Kemetstry

    Kemetstry going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2001
    Messages:
    20,944
    Likes Received:
    5,245
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Chemist
    Location:
    Detroit
    Ratings:
    +6,128

    But he wasn't involved in the act. Doesn't that make it different?






    ..
     
  4. Angela22

    Angela22 Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    6,583
    Likes Received:
    2,894
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +3,317


    In what act? Because what I see is, he willingly gave up his own DNA to father a child. Now, it seems he may be on the hook for it because he wanted to do it on his own terms instead of by the law.
     
  5. Kemetstry

    Kemetstry going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2001
    Messages:
    20,944
    Likes Received:
    5,245
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Chemist
    Location:
    Detroit
    Ratings:
    +6,128

    :10500: .o0( Typical )

    The act of sex. That kind of clouds his "intent", doesn't it?





    ..
     
  6. Angela22

    Angela22 Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    6,583
    Likes Received:
    2,894
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +3,317

    Typical in what manner?

    His intent was to give his DNA over, knowing full well they wanted a baby as a result, no? He didn't want the responsibilities, and this was made known up front, but doing it on his own terms, instead of by law, seems to make no nevermind of that. I really don't see what else there is to it.
     
  7. butterfly#1

    butterfly#1 going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,944
    Likes Received:
    2,098
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +2,204
    This is a tough one. I feel that he should not be responsible. Yes, its his DNA, but it was clear upfront he wanted nothing to do with the child. The partners should reconcile their differences as far as taking care of the child.

    It should not fall back on him.
     
  8. Angela22

    Angela22 Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    6,583
    Likes Received:
    2,894
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +3,317

    Had he done it by law, I guess that'd be the case, huh? :10500: Just sounds like some guy who gambled on people staying true to their own words, and possibly now has to pay up for it. Nothing new.
     
  9. butterfly#1

    butterfly#1 going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,944
    Likes Received:
    2,098
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +2,204
    Yes, that's it. One has to be cautious these days about everything!
     
  10. baller

    baller Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    Canada
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2001
    Messages:
    3,759
    Likes Received:
    673
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    the near north
    Ratings:
    +836
    a contract, whether written or verbal, is legally binding. yet, the state--because one of the partners has become unable to care for the child, financially...leaving the burden on the state--is trying to nullify that contract so that they can collect from the donor. sperm donors aren't responsible for what people do with their sperm. neither should this man be held financially responsible for this child. it's not his child...the child belongs to the same-sex partners. it's their responsibility to support it.
     
Loading...