Court case query: Is Topeka man a sperm donor or father?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2013 6:02 PM GMT
    Court case query: Is Topeka man a sperm donor or father?

    Full article: http://cjonline.com/news/2012-12-28/court-case-query-topeka-man-sperm-donor-or-father

    "Topekan William Marotta sought only to become a sperm donor — but now the state of Kansas is trying to have him declared a father.

    Nearly four years ago, Marotta donated sperm in a plastic cup to a lesbian couple after responding to an ad they had placed on Craigslist.

    Marotta and the women, Topekans Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, signed an agreement holding him harmless for support of the child, a daughter Schreiner bore after being artificially inseminated.

    But the Kansas Department for Children and Families is now trying to have Marotta declared the 3-year-old girl’s father and forced to pay child support. The case is scheduled for a Jan. 8 hearing in Shawnee County District Court."




    Do you guys think this man should be ordered to pay child support? Thoughts?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2013 6:06 PM GMT
    No. He donated sperm, he didn't fuck the girl.

    Either way this is rediculous and it will slow down sperm donation across the country! We need a petition save the mini swimmers!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2013 6:12 PM GMT
    Chainers said...

    Either way this is rediculous and it will slow down sperm donation across the country! We need a petition save the mini swimmers!


    In the mean time, I will volunteer to be the collection attendant.

    @all - Stay tuned! I may be in a city near you!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2013 6:19 PM GMT
    He should be a sperm donor, but all of this varies based on the specific state law. Remember that we have a strong precedent that both biological parents have a legal obligation to support the child, no matter how it was conceived, and that a parent can't waive that obligation on behalf of the child. State law has to carve out limited exceptions that make sense. It looks like they narrowly crafted a provision that requires that sperm donation to be done with the assistance of a physician, so as to avoid people getting around the basic public policy of helping the child.

    Fathering a biological child without first figuring out the legal ramifications is just stupid.
  • Menergy_1

    Posts: 737

    Jan 03, 2013 6:45 PM GMT
    hmm, organ donors might think twice - perhaps before donating a testicle or something like that if it were feasible/viable, which later was instrumental in other ramifications. icon_wink.gif

    I can understand the biological parent angle, for sure, but this case seems a medical service rather than an effort by the guy to establish "fatherhood". If a husband for example saves frozen sperm in a sperm bank and has a vasectomy, later using the frozen sperm to impregnate his wife/gf then it's a little more a case of "fatherhood" than sort of anonymous sperm donation, IMO
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Jan 03, 2013 6:58 PM GMT
    Well, it is Kansas, after all - kind of like Kentucky without the coal - not known for modern thought among its leaders. Not quite into the 20th century yet. What would one expect of a state that settles political disputes by warfare between its citizens, fought hard to keep blacks segregated (Brown vs. Board of Education), and wants its schools to teach religious "creationism" instead of evolution? Showme is right, that anyone considering being a sperm donor should see a lawyer first - just adds to the cost of getting a child - but at least it increases the income of lawyers, which adds to the growth of the economy. (Or, live in a state with 21st century laws). And why would any rational person want to create "offspring" that will grow up in a state that is in continual conflict over whether children should be taught religion instead of science?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2013 8:49 PM GMT
    Suetonius said see a lawyer first - . . . it increases the income of lawyers, which adds to the growth of the economy


    I am unanimous in that. See how selfless I am in my day to day life? icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2013 3:13 AM GMT
    showme saidHe should be a sperm donor, but all of this varies based on the specific state law. Remember that we have a strong precedent that both biological parents have a legal obligation to support the child, no matter how it was conceived, and that a parent can't waive that obligation on behalf of the child. State law has to carve out limited exceptions that make sense. It looks like they narrowly crafted a provision that requires that sperm donation to be done with the assistance of a physician, so as to avoid people getting around the basic public policy of helping the child.

    Fathering a biological child without first figuring out the legal ramifications is just stupid.


    I'm curious, have there been any cases where an egg donor or a surrogate mother have been obliged by the family court system to pay any sort of child support?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2013 3:24 AM GMT
    How can they circumvent those legal documents he signed? It says he is not culpable for anything regarding the child conceived. icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2013 4:06 AM GMT
    Bustamante saidHow can they circumvent those legal documents he signed? It says he is not culpable for anything regarding the child conceived. icon_eek.gif


    Kansas law rules that contract void because the artificial insemination was not performed by a licensed physician. I'm not quite sure why that policy exists. icon_question.gif
  • reptile18

    Posts: 199

    Jan 04, 2013 6:26 AM GMT
    Random off-topic question: If a woman rapes a man and becomes pregnant, is the man then obligated to care for the child or pay child support?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2013 6:32 AM GMT
    Why should the taxpayers of Kansas pay for the kid if there is a biological parent around who is responsible for its conception?

    In homage to King Solomon they should cleave the child in two and give each half to the bio parents to care for.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2013 6:32 AM GMT
    reptile18 saidRandom off-topic question: If a woman rapes a man and becomes pregnant, is the man then obligated to care for the child or pay child support?


    I've heard of cases where this is true. I'll see if I can't dig up the facts, but I've heard that some underage teenage boys who were raped by adult women were forced to pay child support to their rapists.

    The family courts tend to be heavily biased against men.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2013 7:05 AM GMT
    UndercoverMan saidWhy should the taxpayers of Kansas pay for the kid if there is a biological parent around who is responsible for its conception?


    So does that mean a man who donates sperm is financially responsible for all the kids conceived by his donations? If a gay male couple conceived a child with a surrogate mother and then "fell on hard times", would you petition the state to have the bio mom pay child support?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2013 3:25 PM GMT
    ^ It's a policy decision where the state has to decide and draw the line. Once you draw the line, that's pretty much it, even though there will probably be individual cases that tug at the conscience. I.e., unless every case rests on its own merits (which is unworkable because, among other things, those deciding would be very likely to have different views and come out different ways in the same situation), any law that fixes a line is going to treat some individuals unfairly.

    I'm not saying that Kansas' law is the right one - seems too restrictive to me. But I do understand that the statute needs to have some guidance, otherwise every yahoo that wants to evade responsibility for his child support is going to claim he was merely a sperm donor. And in U.S. law today generally, "the best interests of the child" are paramount.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2013 3:56 PM GMT
    Again, I will say this. never get a lesbian pregnant. Ever.
  • spacemagic

    Posts: 520

    Jan 04, 2013 4:05 PM GMT
    Heard about this on NPR yesterday.. ridiculous!

    But they really should take this to the highest authority on paternity.. Maury Povich.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2013 4:29 PM GMT
    the law exists, i'm guessing, to prevent unlawful insemination. I.E. woman gets greedy, acquires his sperm and inseminates herself to gain child support. It sounds absolutely absurd but THIS SHIT HAPPENS!! The sad thing is that the ruling is not in the spirit of the law. Both the women and the man have ZERO animosity towards another, this entire joke is the state's doing because it doesn't want to pay support.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2013 10:56 PM GMT
    Bromoflexual said
    reptile18 saidRandom off-topic question: If a woman rapes a man and becomes pregnant, is the man then obligated to care for the child or pay child support?


    I've heard of cases where this is true. I'll see if I can't dig up the facts, but I've heard that some underage teenage boys who were raped by adult women were forced to pay child support to their rapists.

    The family courts tend to be heavily biased against men.


    Found it...

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/

    An example of a statutory rape victim being held responsible for child support to his rapist...
    "In California, an appellate court upheld an order (San Luis Obispo County v. Nathan J., 1996) forcing a 15 year old boy to pay child support to his rapist after she became pregnant and gave birth.The court ruled that although the boy was considered too young to provide consent to the sex act, he was an admitted willing participant and therefore liable to pay support stating that he was not an “innocent victim” because he had discussed it with his rapist prior to having sex."

    An example of another male rape victim ordered to pay child support...
    "In Alabama, a man was actually raped by a woman and was still ordered to pay child support. This man got drunk at a party and passed out. The next morning he awoke in bed, naked from the waist down. He testified that he did not remember having sex. Others testified that the mother had actually bragged about having sex with him when he was “passed out” and “wasn’t even aware of it.” This constitutes rape in most states, yet the man was ordered to pay support to the woman who was apparently not even criminally charged."

    RoadsterRacer87the law exists, i'm guessing, to prevent unlawful insemination. I.E. woman gets greedy, acquires his sperm and inseminates herself to gain child support. It sounds absolutely absurd but THIS SHIT HAPPENS!!


    Ah I see...that makes sense. I've also heard about cases like this too...
    http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/
    "In Louisiana a man was ordered to pay child support to a woman who had him wear a condom during oral sex. She then took the condom extracted the sperm and impregnated herself."
  • stratavos

    Posts: 1831

    Jan 04, 2013 11:15 PM GMT
    UndercoverMan saidWhy should the taxpayers of Kansas pay for the kid if there is a biological parent around who is responsible for its conception?

    In homage to King Solomon they should cleave the child in two and give each half to the bio parents to care for.


    ^ agreed. atleast then we'll know the real parent by who would rather give up the child than have it slain.