Judge rules Kansas sperm donor owes child support
Source: Associated Press
A man who provided sperm to a lesbian couple in response to an online ad is the father of a child born to one of the women and must pay child support, a Kansas judge ruled Wednesday.
Topeka resident William Marotta had argued that he had waived his parental rights and didn't intend to be a father. Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi rejected that claim, saying the parties didn't involve a licensed physician in the artificial insemination process and thus Marotta didn't qualify as a sperm donor, The Topeka Capital-Journal (http://bit.ly/LHwLyW) reported.
"In this case, quite simply, the parties failed to perform to statutory requirement of the Kansas Parentage Act in not enlisting a licensed physician at some point in the artificial insemination process, and the parties' self-designation of (Marotta) as a sperm donor is insufficient to relieve (Marotta) of parental right and responsibilities to the child," Mattivi wrote.
The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in October 2012 seeking to have Marotta declared the father of a child born to Jennifer Schreiner in 2009. The state was seeking to have Marotta declared the child's father so he can be held responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance the state provided, as well as future child support.
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21629154&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fhl%3Den%26redir_esc%3D%26client%3Dms-android-att-us%26source%3Dandroid-browser-type%26v%3D133247963%26qsubts%3D1390443360977%26q%3Dmarotta%2Bsperm%2Bdonor%26v%3D133247963
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)It's totally protectionism by the fucking AMA. I would bet that lay midwifery is also illegal in Kansas.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)If you are going to be a sperm donor have a legal contact and check the law...duh..This isn't the first time this has happened. .
Who advertises on Craigslist for sperm. .who answers an ad for sperm on Craigslist?
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)People without sperm and people with sperm.
- I'd imagine.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Protects the donor from liability and the recipient from a custody issue...If neither could see problems with this it is a classic case of two fools meeting. .
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)1000words
(7,051 posts)Lawyers are expensive.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Custody battles are expensive. Child support is expensive. A legal contact is comparatively cheap. ..maybe $1000...maybe. ..
1000words
(7,051 posts)that didn't demand one to judge folks they have never met.
Carry on.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Or the consequences of parenting a child with a stranger. I didn't judge it, the judge did..i suspect this wouldn't have fared any better in most states.
rebecca_herman
(617 posts)I used donor sperm to get pregnant and it was under $1000 a vial. I'm not sure what the cost with artificial insemination would have been since I did IVF which is much more expensive. It's probably cheaper than a lawyer or a court battle.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Then there is the issue of disease that can be minimized by using medical services. The whole scenario seems easily avoidable using common sense.
tblue37
(65,269 posts)
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)A lawyer would have cost him a few hundred dollars, $500 at the most. Now he's on the hook for 18 years. Whatever he got paid wasn't worth the hole he's dug himself.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)But the state is leaving him holding the shovel.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)wish to consult a lawyer. One's intentions are meaningless.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)state law is regarding this
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Requiring estranged biological parents to support their children if the children are receiving state aid, would require more than the parents simply stating they had some verbal (or even poorly written) contract which would relieve them of the responsibility.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)to make agreements that don't take into account that there are fairly specific laws covering these types of situations.
sendero
(28,552 posts).... you and I can "agree" we're going to steal Joe's car, doesn't make it legal to do so.
I feel sorry for the guy but really this is pretty much his own fault.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)astonished to get a notice from the court telling him to go take a paternity test (which he would have to pay for!)
When I explained that this was a prelude to child support establishment, he was shocked and dismayed.
Why??? Because boy genius and girlfriend had agreed that she would get pregnant, but adopt the baby out and get paid for it and they would split the proceeds. He then wanted to know if I could force her to pay the money he was out, and force her to put the baby up for adoption. Failing that....could I get a court to make her abort?
He was in for a shock.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)child support is a statutory obligation, not a right he can disclaim at will.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)
- There would be no 
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)Most people actually use a doctor and an actual medical environment for artificial insemination not a Dixie cup and Craigslist.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)
skamaria
(329 posts)1000words
(7,051 posts)This doesn't seem right
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)1000words
(7,051 posts)The only way this gets resolved equitably, is the lesbian couple writes this guy a check every month.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)1000words
(7,051 posts)
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)She's gotten state assistance for the child at some point, and the state is looking to get their money back.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)The state loses me. If it were a matter of the state being satisfied with recovery of the money, that would be one thing. No the state will require him to pay child support to the mother regardless of whether or not she is receiving state assistance.
7962
(11,841 posts)I mean, come on. We've been hollering that LGBT people be treated the same, so here it is. They wanted a kid they got one. This case will mean no man will ever want to help out a couple have a child in the future.
Can straight couples now go after surrogates for support? There are so many bad ways this can go.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Or the child is under the care of CYS. If you have a child under Children and Youth Services (CYS) care, CYS has the right to get child support from BOTH parents. Thus both parents are probably being asked to pay, and the Father is objecting (The Mother is probably paying).
Worse, if this is a CYS case and the child is in some type of long term facilities (Juvenile hall, hospital etc) the parents are liable for the WHOLE COST OF THAT FACILITIES. A normal Child support order is based on your income, but this may be based on the cost of the facilities, i.e a couple of thousand dollars a month, when child support to the mother would have been only a couple of hundred.
Remember under the Common Law, the Natural Father of a child MUST pay for support for that child unless he is living with that child and providing support by providing a house and food for that child.
Furthermore, Under the Common Law, any law in derogation of the Common Law must be construed narrowly except if it is a complete re write of the Common law (and that is NOT the issue here). The law the father is trying to use does exempt the "natural father" from paying for support, but only if the Father followed the law to the letter. In this case the Father did not and thus the law the Father is trying to use does not apply, but the Common Law rule does.
As to Welfare, under the Welfare Reform Act of the 1990s, non-custodian parents can have up to 55% of their income taken to pay support for one child (60% for more then one child). All states are to have state system to obtain such support and the State MUST use them if the State paid the child (or the child;s custodian parent) any welfare. Welfare is only available to the custodian parent if that parent has applied for support from the other parent (or if a non-parent has the child from both parents). If the State pays any welfare, the State MUST go after any parent who did not receive child support but did obtain welfare for the child. This is a FEDERAL REQUIREMENT for 50% of all welfare payments to Children are Federally Funded and to get those Federal Funds the States must follow these Federal Requirements.
Thus he has to pay, if the Child received any welfare. The exception is narrow and the Father did NOT do what was required to be under that exception.
The case went up to the US Supreme Court on a Sex discrimination claim and the court ruled that it was still sex discrimination to deny women the right to work in the lead battery factory, the mere fact that GM may face future liability, while true, did NOT stop the claim of Sex discrimination.
In simple terms, the US Supreme Court ruled that given that parents can NOT sign away the rights of their Children, the right of such children to sue survive for such children have the constitutional right to sue for damages, even if their mother exposed them to the damages, GM would still have to pay.
The same here, how can a Father and Mother sign away the right to support of an unborn child? The State of Kansas says they can in such surrogates cases, but given the right to support is the right of the CHILD not the Parents, is such a law constitutional? How can a third person sign away the rights of another person, when that person does not agree to such rights being signed away (and Children can NEVER agree, they are NOT competent till they are 18).
In cases involving litigation and a minor, the court hearing the case must agree to any agreement for any settlement to be binding on the child. What Judge approved the signing away of support? Thus any taking of the CHILD RIGHT TO SUPPORT can be a taking of property (Support is considered property by the US Supreme Court) without compensation and thus a violation of the Bill of Rights.
I have NOT read of case for someone will have to have filed for support and be denied and then file an appeal on the constitutional issue. Most people who have money to pay a surrogate has the money to support a child and thus support never comes up (and once the child turns 18, support obligations tend to end). It may be years before a case gets to the US courts and this case may be it if the State made the Constitutional issue as part of its case (Something I doubt).
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)The same thing would have happened with a straight couple who fathered a child. Imagine a scenario where a wife has an affair, gets pregnant, and has a baby. Shortly after having the baby, the couple divorces and the husband goes to court and proves it's not his. The same rules about obligation would apply.
That they are LGBT in this case is incidental.
7962
(11,841 posts)The difference being that he didnt find out the child was his until a few years down the road. It made big news in the state because the judge actually said he still had to pay to support the child that wasnt his. He had originally agreed to continue to pay what he had been paying, but his ex wanted a big increase and he said no. The first judge said he had to pay the higher amount! That was reversed by the Supreme Court. I dont remember if the biological father was ever held accountable or if he was located.
But my point is with those who donate or surrogate for either straight or gay couples. There's no cheating or anything underhanded going on. And now a judge could make them pay for a child that, in the beginning, was never meant to be his or hers responsibility?
Nay
(12,051 posts)child, even if conceived through an affair with another man, is legally the child of the man married to its mother. These laws were made before DNA, of course, to preserve the rights of the man in the marriage against any claims of outside men to the children of that marriage and to preserve the well being of the child.
That said, this guy was remiss in not getting a legal agreement/involving a lawyer to protect himself from responsibility for the child. I don't know if individual judges can decide against these donors if they have a legal agreement that makes them a sperm donor rather than a father, but that's where the fight would be. You have to take the legal steps required in your state to become a DONOR, not a father. If there are no such laws in your state, don't answer those Craigslist ads.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)A presumption is who has the burden of proof. In the case of a Child born to a married woman, her husband has to show that he could NOT be the father. In olden days by showing he had no "access" to her on the days she could have become pregnant or if jury decided that the nature of the child shows he was NOT the father.
Notice if the evidence is equal as to being the Father or not the Father, the husband is the Father of the Child. The burden is on him to show it was not.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)In Pennsylvania we have the rule that if a Man says he is the father of a Child, he is the Father even if he can later prove he is not. Our Courts have said, that rule was good enough for Ben Franklin and George Washington, it is good enough for you.
Ben Franklin's first born child may have been fathered by someone else, but Ben Franklin took responsibility for the child. That was the child that helped with with his kite experiment and who later Ben Franklin arranged to be the Last Royal Governor of New Jersey. When Franklin was indicted for the crime of releasing papers that showed people in the Royal Government had been lying, his son wanted to stay Royal Governor and refused to support Ben. Ben barely was able to get out of England and never talked to his eldest son afterward.
George Washington was accused of fathering a child out of Wedlock when he lead the US Army as President during the Whiskey Rebellion of 1792. While he never acknowledge the child to be his, he did pay the child's mother off. Such payments were legal in Pennsylvania till the 1990s when the US Supreme Court ruled it violated the rights of the child to support for the cut off was age 7 not 18.
Just pointing out that in some states merely saying you are the Father is enough to make you the father of that child as far as the law is concerned.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
penultimate
(1,110 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)secondary rule of thumb for childless couples: please make sure *every* possible inquiry/avenue into adoption is explored before dragging in some moron off the street willing to donate sperm/eggs/whatever...And if you DO decide to search the internets for a third party, please ensure that all the legal paperwork is in order...
RandySF
(58,684 posts)Don't let it shoot at anywhere beyond a piece of tissue.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)The state is railroading this guy.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)See my post above, but if you father a child, you must support that child. That is the Common Law Rule and the law in every state of the union.
Now some states have permitted surrogate fathers not to have to pay support, but only if the father follows the rules that state has on surrogates. If you do NOT follow those rules, the Common Law rule is the rule that applies and it is harsh.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Shouldn't the couple who made the contract with him be equally liable as well?
What if his parental rights are terminated?
I'm calling bullshit here because this is only an issue because the state, run by a bunch of religious knuckledraggers, wants to get paid. This has nothing to do with child support. This is about how the state is trying to recoup money because a lesbian had the temerity to apply for state aid because she has a low income.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)If the Child is in the care of CYS, both parents would have been assessed child support by their local Domestic Relations Service. In this case, if it is CYS based, Mother apparently did not appeal the assessment made by Domestic Relations, but the father did and thus it is only the Father's appeal we are hearing of.
If this is a welfare case, it is the non-custodian parent who must pay the custodian parent support for the child. If the custodian parent does NOT make a request for support, the custodian parent loses any right to Welfare. Thus Welfare is the driving force, Mother is taking care of the child and thus providing her share of the support for the child. Father is NOT taking care of the child for he does not live with the child, but as the natural father of the child he has a duty to support that child and thus must pay child support.
If the Father had the child and getting welfare benefits, Welfare would go after Mother for she would then be the non-custodian parent.
Remember this is all driven by Welfare Reform. One of the facts behind Welfare Reform was that something like 70-80% of children were on Welfare for the simple reason the non-custodian parents were NOT paying enough support. Thus Domestic Relations (DRO) was found to be a key to reducing the number of people on Welfare. Thus getting the parents (Either natural or adoptive) to pay support was a key part of Welfare Reform and this decision by this judge is driven by Welfare Reform and its thrust to go after ANY non-custodian parent. That can be the Father or the Mother and sometimes both.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)But, given the circumstances in this case, the sperm donor is not a 'parent.' He is just a sperm donor.
If the mother is unable to support the child it should be between her and the state.
My point was, that the only reason why this turned into an issue at all was because the state wants to get paid by someone and the way the law is set up (as you so kindly summarized) allows them to go after the donor despite the fact that he has no moral obligation to support the other couples child.
Based on this ruling, the state could make a monetary claim of any sperm donor in similar circumstances.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Merely donating sperm is enough to make you legally liable. That has always been the law.
As to having a moral obligations, most churches would said he did, even if he was NOT the father (i.e. you are your brother's keeper).
What is legally required is less then what is morally required, but except for being kicked out of your church or not people not talking to you, not much anyone can do if you do not feel like you have a moral obligation. On the other hand, the Courts can enforce LEGAL OBLIGATIONS and that is what it is doing.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)I just don't agree with the ruling.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)The couple that wanted a child were not prepared to have a child and need state support and now the state is going after the guy who was just trying to help the couple fulfill their dream of having a child. Granted the guy should have had a contract in place before doing what he did but wow...
donco
(1,548 posts)a wise practice to cutout the middleman.
penultimate
(1,110 posts)I wonder if the mothers who were ever in a financial position to support the child w/o support, or if they are just victims of the shitty economy. If they were never capable, makes ya wonder what all parties involved were thinking.
mackerel
(4,412 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)A man from the San Francisco Bay area has fathered 14 children in the last five years through free sperm donations to women he meets through his website — and is now in trouble with the federal government.
The case of Trent Arsenault of Fremont has drawn attention to the practice of informal sperm donation, which physicians and bioethicists call unsafe but some people say is a civil liberties issue.
Arsenault says he donates sperm out of a sense of service to help people who want to have children but can't afford conventional sperm banks. The 36-year-old minister's son has four more children on the way.
"I always had known through people praying at church that there's fertility issues," Arsenault told The Associated Press on Monday. "I thought it would just be a neat way of service to help the community."
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration sent Arsenault a cease-and-desist letter late last year telling him he must stop because he does not follow the agency's requirements for getting tested for sexually transmitted diseases within seven days before giving sperm. The FDA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Violators of FDA regulations on human cells and tissues face up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine, according to guidelines published on the agency's website.
Arsenault gets tested regularly, but following the FDA's rules would make it impossible to keep offering his sperm for free, he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/feds-issue-warning-unconventional-sperm-donor-140811851.html
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)And a blow to any couple seeking donors in the future.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)I would never donate...unlessn100% anonymous. ..probably even not then. Even a lot of contractual agreements can go bad and leave you on the hook.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)If the people in question were wealthy none of this would have gone down the way it did.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Once the state has to start picking up expenses for a child. They seem to go pretty far to find any and every individual who those costs might be passed on to. Same appears to be true for Medicare expenses too.