- This topic contains 0 voices and has 21 replies.
January 3, 2013 at 2:11 am #606102
A Kansas man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple after answering an online ad is fighting the state’s efforts to suddenly force him to pay child support for the now 3-year-old girl, arguing that he and the women signed an agreement waiving all of his parental rights.
The case hinges on the fact that no doctors were used for the artificial insemination. The state argues that because William Marotta didn’t work through a clinic or doctor, as required by state law, he can be held responsible for about $6,000 that the child’s biological mother received through public assistance – as well as future child support.
Marotta is asking that the case be dismissed, arguing that he’s not legally the child’s father, only a sperm donor.
–Dude, that’s what they ALL say!
Truth is, you didn’t give much thought to who was gonna support that kid or pay for the delivery, did you? And why should you? You’re not some patronizing religious nut job trying to run people’s lives, are you? Hell no! You’re just a big-hearted liberal fella trying to do something nice for a couple of ladies you met on the Internet.
–Uh, please explain to me why you should be treated any differently than some schmuck who sleeps around without using a condom. After all, he thinks he’s doing something “nice” for the ladies too . . .January 3, 2013 at 2:51 am #781578
hmmm..wonder if the contract was just between them, or totally legal…attorneys and all…January 3, 2013 at 3:01 am #781579January 3, 2013 at 3:02 am #781580
and what in the heck are the couple thinking if they do not have the resources to bring a new person into the world?January 3, 2013 at 3:24 am #781581
Another thought experiment would be adoption…
Would the state go after a biological mom who had placed her child after birth – in the case where both adoptive parents had become deadbeats?
You know, the bio-mom had actually carried the child for 9 months. So, in a way, she’s even MORE responsible for its being there.January 3, 2013 at 3:33 am #781582
So the child is three now. Maybe ,just maybe, the couple was doing fine until the virtual collapse of our economy just a few years ago .Perhaps they lost their jobs like so many others and are barely hanging on.
YES! Let’s take all the children away from people with lost resources so we can pay even more for the children to be placed in foster care instead of staying with their loving parents!! Sounds like a brilliant idea to me.. Wonder why society as whole has not thought that a great idea.Hmmm???
As far as the man paying? Well he should have thought of all possibilities before he pulled down his drawers and filled the jar. Really, what an idiot.Wasn’t thinking ahead I’d say.Guess he made a bad decision and should pay up.January 3, 2013 at 3:51 am #781583January 3, 2013 at 5:15 am #781584January 3, 2013 at 6:19 am #781585
oddreality – your post 6 could have some merit; but still were is the cushion (aka savings)January 3, 2013 at 4:04 pm #781586
even people with that magic cushion of savings haven’t weathered this “downturn” so well…
how many years could you live off your savings hoop?January 3, 2013 at 5:18 pm #781587
Why Jo, hoop could live off of his savings for years because he has been so responsible, and saved so much money!
BUT…..he wouldn’t even need to take a single dollar out, BECAUSE, he would just pull himself up by his bootstraps, and go out and land a new, sufficiently paying job right away, digging ditches, or building bridges!
HELL! He’d probably work full time at each of those, putting in 16-20 hour days! Because, doncha know, he’s a responsible citizen!
MikeJanuary 3, 2013 at 5:27 pm #781588
if he could..
that’s the fly in the ointment
as you and i know well.January 3, 2013 at 7:07 pm #781589
I worked 16-20 hour days for years. I was on call 24/7 for 7 years straight. What did it get me?
well all this knowledge I struggle to share but that’s about it. Took me 3 years to stop compulsively checking email, sleeping with my cell phone and answering wrong numbers on the third ring from a dead sleep.
When I got cancer it was medicaid and medicare that kept me from owing more money than I had made in my entire life.January 3, 2013 at 7:12 pm #781590
the myth that people who need medicaid and medicare are lazy bums is just that.. a myth.
it’s a lie told to you to justify insurance companies and all of the other “profit centers” now built into processing the claims for your insurance care making even more money.
people who buy the myth spend their time complaining about those poor people who don’t want to work while helping those rich insurance executives rip them off…
i don’t think that’s the smart move here
but there you goJanuary 3, 2013 at 8:28 pm #781591
DBP (post 1) and Odd (post 6); the mother of a child produced by a one night stand probably doesn’t have the father’s info to provide to the state, and a sperm donor at a santioned clinic doesn’t have to put any greater thought into his actions than this man did.
Meg makes an excellent point in post 5 – why is the state pursuing this? And why did the biological mother even reveal who the donor is? There is a lot missing from this story.January 3, 2013 at 8:37 pm #781592
i am with Ms sparkles..
there is a lot missing from this story..
and i would be really grateful if someone more ambitious than i would go find it ;->January 3, 2013 at 9:03 pm #781593
More info: couple broke up, primary wage earner falls ill, unable to work and applies to state for health insurance for the daughter. State says they’ll pin it all on the sperm donor.
This is worthy of an addendum to the book What’s Wrong With Kansas?January 4, 2013 at 2:46 am #781594
This story is about one thing: the State of Kansas not recognizing the correct second parent – her ex partner. Because Kansas does not let gays marry and because they don’t have second parent adoption, there was no way for her partner to have a legally responsible relationship to the child (in eyes of law). This is absolutely why every state needs rights for gay couples – so we can be responsible in every way for out family decisions just like straights. The state is going after the donor simPly because they cannot establish parenthood for the ex partner – shameful – she is the other half that brought this child into the world and has volunteered to help the kid, yet Kansas refuses to recognize her.
While I hated adopting my own kid, I was grateful that WA affords me this right and that she will always know that I claimed her and will always take care of her, no matter what.January 4, 2013 at 9:12 pm #781595January 6, 2013 at 10:40 pm #781596
Sounds like a lot of possible problems with such an issue. Not thought out before created. Just like the Marijuana Law, unfished.
Any donor of sperm better get writing done and legal papers of some kind first.
As to not being ble to take care of child 3yrs later, things happen in this day and age to change financial status and Savings don’t last forever. Its been voiced on here many times.
I’m really curious how that particular case comes out in the end.January 6, 2013 at 11:24 pm #781597
Betty, the people in this situation had a signed agreement, but it can only be as legal as the state allows. If, as in Kansas, the second female parent isn’t allowed to adopt the child, then technically, the donor remains the “legal” parent, if named.
Frankly, this mother never ever should have named the donor to the State. She must have known she was living in one of the most anti-gay states in our Country. However, it is not her fault that the State she lives in refuses to acknowledge her family via gay marriage or second parent adoption. These are the legal protections our families need to clearly define responsibilities for children, etc within the eyes of the State.
Honestly, it is very risky to use a “known donor” for so many reasons. Case law across the county usually sides with biological parents when they “change their minds” after donating and want custody of a child. So, even if you are in a state with legal protections for gays, it is still a risk to use a friend or volunteer as a donor. Courts generally overrule legal agreements if a donor later wants to be a father. The only truly safe way to ensure that a donor won’t show up to claim custody later is to use an anonymous sperm bank, where it is crystal clear to everyone involved that there was never a pretense of “fatherhood” involved in the insemination process.
That being said, we have many friends who have used friends that are active in their kids lives. You just really really need to trust the person you pick.January 7, 2013 at 2:56 am #781598
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.