Can Kansas make a sperm donor cough up child support?

posted at 9:31 am on January 6, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

There’s a rather strange case brewing out in Kansas right now involving a man being sued by the state for child support. That, in and of itself, is sadly not all that unusual in modern society, but this one has a twist. The guy was a sperm donor. But that’s not the only twist in an increasingly complicated tale.

If you’re planning to donate sperm in Kansas, you may want to do it through a doctor.

That’s one message from the case of William Marotta of Topeka. In 2009, he noticed a Craig’s List advertisement from a lesbian couple, also in Topeka, seeking donated sperm.

“Intrigued” by the ad, he agreed to donate and says he delivered three cupfuls of his sperm — gratis — to the women, one of whom gave birth to a daughter.

So first… ewww. Thanks, CNN, but that might fall into the “Too Much Information” category. But getting beyond that, the tale goes somewhat off the rails. As part of the, er… arrangement… Mr. Marotta and both of the lesbian parents sign an agreement where he gives up any custodial rights to the future child and is absolved of responsibility. He departs the scene and the couple proceed to conceive.

The lesbian couple breaks up after having the baby and the mother finds herself in dire financial straights. She applies for public assistance and receives payments. Then, as part of the state’s usual routine, they attempt to track down the father – not the mother’s “ex” because gay marriage is constitutionally banned in Kansas – and nail him for $6,000 to cover the assistance she received and demands he start making child support payments.

My first reaction here was that the guy was totally being screwed over by the system. Editorials were posted saying that the laws in Kansas were out of date and needed to be changed. But the longer I thought about it and considered the side of the story being put forward by the state, the less sure I became of my initial reaction.

First, both the lesbian couple and Mr. Marotta messed up quite a bit from a legal perspective. The agreement they signed was totally private and never involved a court or a lawyer. The artificial insemination was done at home with no doctor ever being involved. Yes, I understand that the process is extremely expensive in a doctor’s office and lawyers aren’t cheap, but there was no paper trail to document their agreement. Under Kansas law, if the women had used a doctor who noted that it was a donor situation, Marotta would have been off the hook. And it seems to me – as a layman – that if they had at least gone to court to get some sort of formal donor agreement documented before the fact, he would stand a better chance in court today. As things stand, it looks as if he will lose.

But even more to the point, perhaps the current state of the law serves as a barrier against abuse. If this type of arrangement was allowed to stand, could any guy who got a woman pregnant later show up claiming to be a “donor” in a he said, she said situation? Or what if Marotta was the father, but had threatened the mother with harm if she contradicted his story to the police? (Mind you, I’m not saying that’s the case here at all, but in some other set of circumstances, you could see some real jerk doing that.) It just seems to open the door to all manner of abuse.

In the end, this is a very sad situation for Mr. Marotta, but if he and the lesbian couple had done the proper leg work to check into the applicable laws and get everything documented properly, he wouldn’t have this problem. I’m no longer sure that all of the outrage over this story is justified.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

You reap what you sow…

OmahaConservative on January 6, 2013 at 9:34 AM

No.Sympathy!

OldEnglish on January 6, 2013 at 9:37 AM

You know what this comes down to?
The destruction of the last vestiges of the concept of marriage.

Count to 10 on January 6, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Alternate headline: Dumb@$$ Get Screwed By Lesbins.

davidk on January 6, 2013 at 9:40 AM

sign an agreement where he gives up any custodial rights to the future child and is absolved of responsibility. He departs the scene and the couple proceed to conceive.

Was this agreement witnessed? The state may WANT to stick him with the bill, but they are wrong to do so. I hope this gets overturned on appeal. The fact that he didn’t go through a doctor’s office is irrelevant. The outcome would be the same. Who would the state stick it to then? The doctor?

dogsoldier on January 6, 2013 at 9:40 AM

“Intrigued” by the ad, he agreed to donate and says he delivered three cupfuls of his sperm — gratis — to the women,

Uh, are we sure the real father isn’t a horse?

CorporatePiggy on January 6, 2013 at 9:40 AM

You reap what you sow…

OmahaConservative on January 6, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Thread over.

Steve Eggleston on January 6, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Three cups?

*triple ew*

Fallon on January 6, 2013 at 9:41 AM

On each of the few times I’ve ever been to Craigslist, I remember following this procedure:

1. Pick a city
2. Enter search terms
3. Scan for what it is I’m looking for.
4. Go to Ebay.

I guess we’re to assume he was just thumbing through the billions of listings and “happened” to come across this intriguing listing.

Sure he was. This guy was trolling the personals looking for a sperm receptacle to make a donation.

Perv. Welcome to fatherhood. Don’t want to be a father? Keep your pants on.

BobMbx on January 6, 2013 at 9:41 AM

…and people wonder why in-vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, and other reproductive chicanery are such bad ideas.

It’s not the lack of formal contracts or the involvement of an actual clinic or doctor that’s problematic here: it’s the lack of commitment to one another and the refusal of the parties who create children to take responsibility for that act of creation. And yes, that goes for the sperm “donor” too. You make ‘em, you raise ‘em. Period.

And what’s worst of all is that the real victim here is not the sperm donor, nor the impoverished lesbian, but the kid who has been treated like a novelty item that can be shunted around without any regard for her welfare. And now that they don’t want to play with their “toy” anymore, they’re all busy trying to shove responsibility for the kid onto each other.

The commoditization of humanity needs to end.

Stoic Patriot on January 6, 2013 at 9:41 AM

And what’s worst of all is that the real victim here is not the sperm donor, nor the impoverished lesbian, but the kid who has been treated like a novelty item that can be shunted around without any regard for her welfare. And now that they don’t want to play with their “toy” anymore, they’re all busy trying to shove responsibility for the kid onto each other.

The commoditization of humanity needs to end.

Stoic Patriot on January 6, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Obama is right. Look at how these 3 adults are being punished by a mistake.

BobMbx on January 6, 2013 at 9:43 AM

I don’t see why their private contract can’t save the guy. Why can’t a court look at it and make the common sense determination that all parties were willing and consented to the agreement they drew up and signed and they therefore must stick to it?

dczombie on January 6, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Give the baby up for adoption — problem solved.

Judging by the photo of the l e s b i a n s, they look like two whackjobs. Any guy who would answer an ad like that is a loon, too.

Blake on January 6, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Talk about feeding the hand that bites you….

viking01 on January 6, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Just to be safe I used a lawyer to wipe myself this morning.

Flange on January 6, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Hey, I have a great idea – call me crazy but hear me out:

Let’s make it so that the guy with the sperm and the gal with the egg stand before God, family & friends and pledge their lives to one another such that the children they conceive grow up in as healthy an environment as possible, then receive the validation of the state for the same arrangement.

After all, the only natural process by which a child can come into the world is for one party possessing “Tab A” getting together with another party possessing “Slot B”.

I think society would be better off on the whole with my idea.

If only I could come up with a name for it…

turfmann on January 6, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Can Kansas make a sperm donor cough up child support?
=====================================================

Ahem,with humour…….

Austin Powers – The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999) – the dance party

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IOzx3WJtkU

canopfor on January 6, 2013 at 9:47 AM

A child is entitled to child support from its biological parnets, unless one or both of them have had parental rights legally terminated.

This is no different than if the child had been conceived through intercourse. The parents should not be able to sign away the child’s right to support.

Don’t want to pay child support? Keep pants on and stay away from Mason jars and turkey basters.

Wethal on January 6, 2013 at 9:47 AM

No he shouldn’t be held accountable if he signed an agreement. They are using this lawsuit as a backdoor way to get recognition of gay marriage. If the lesbians were a “legal” couple than they would be pursuing the partner.

Please get the govt. out of the “marriage” business. Govt. should only recognize contractual relationships between two consenting adults for the purposes of asset distribution and parental rights.

Socmodfiscon on January 6, 2013 at 9:47 AM

I don’t see why their private contract can’t save the guy. Why can’t a court look at it and make the common sense determination that all parties were willing and consented to the agreement they drew up and signed and they therefore must stick to it?

dczombie on January 6, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Why should the tax payer be stuck with the bill? It was an illegal contract.

Blake on January 6, 2013 at 9:47 AM

One aspect of being a sperm donor in general that troubles me is that the anonymity leaves the offspring ignorant of any medical conditions that they may inherit, and possibly vulnerable to. I have a couple congenital conditions that I would not want a child to blindly inherit, and thus have to undertake the unfortunate voyage of medical discovery that I have had to navigate.

cane_loader on January 6, 2013 at 9:48 AM

I like Kansas.

JellyToast on January 6, 2013 at 9:48 AM

He’s the father, he has the responsibility…no “contract” can change that, he is the father.

Next time, don’t be a “father”…

right2bright on January 6, 2013 at 9:48 AM

The irony of this is just so delicious. The embodiment of the revolution against the phalocratic patriarchy, lesbian couples, at the end of the day still have to depend on man for support.

I have no sympathy for this guy whatsoever. In donating sperm, he condemned a child to never having a chance to grow up with a mother and father. Instead the child will grow up with two butchy water buffaloes for “mothers.”

I can’t wait to see what becomes of our adoption systems in this country when the Supremes overturn bans on gay marriage this term.

SAMinVA on January 6, 2013 at 9:48 AM

A child is entitled to child support from its biological parents, unless one or both of them have had parental rights legally terminated.

This is no different than if the child had been conceived through intercourse. The parents should not be able to sign away the child’s right to support.

Wethal on January 6, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Thank you.

Blake on January 6, 2013 at 9:49 AM

And what’s worst of all is that the real victim here is not the sperm donor, nor the impoverished lesbian, but the kid who has been treated like a novelty item that can be shunted around without any regard for her welfare. And now that they don’t want to play with their “toy” anymore, they’re all busy trying to shove responsibility for the kid onto each other.

The commoditization of humanity needs to end.

Stoic Patriot on January 6, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Comment of the Day, Serious Edition™

Steve Eggleston on January 6, 2013 at 9:49 AM

The guy shouldn’t have to go through this insane thing. But liberals are quite insane, aren’t they?

Years from from now, if men become smart enough to not ‘donate’ sperm, liberal lesbians will be screaming they’re ‘victims’ because men aren’t giving them a chance to become parents.

Liberals are never satisfied. They always find something about which to b*tch. Except for liberals, the last time I saw this kind of thing was when I was five years old and playing with neighbor kids in my sandbox.

Liam on January 6, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Look at it from the legal point of view of the infant, which is what the system does. Our society has always held that an infant has the right to be financially supported by his or her biological parents, except in special circumstances that require official approval. (going through a Doctor, etc) The reason these adults did NOT have the power to make this agreement is that no two people acting privately have the legal authority to agree to take away a 3rd party’s rights – in this case, the lesbian couple and the donor did NOT have the right to take away the infant’s right to be supported by the biological father.

This policy has always been followed because if the the biological parents don’t support a child, that cost falls on the rest of us, either in direct support or in secondary costs that come from abandoned children growing up on the streets. (think Oliver Twist) Sure, the lesbian couple was just as wrong as he is, but there’s no good procedures in place to demand support for a now unwanted child from a non-parent or one-time wannabe parent. That’s the core problem of all of these weird alternative family arrangements, they always end up hurting the children. So who do we look to when everything falls apart? The biological parents, that’s who, because that doesn’t change. The test is always the Best Interests of the Child, nothing else.

Many things in this life are punished, but none are punished as harshly as stupidity. This donor was a complete idiot when he made this arrangement, and he richly deserves the hit he is now taking for it.

Tom Servo on January 6, 2013 at 9:51 AM

It’s good to be King a Trial Lawyer.

FlaMurph on January 6, 2013 at 9:51 AM

I don’t see why their private contract can’t save the guy. Why can’t a court look at it and make the common sense determination that all parties were willing and consented to the agreement they drew up and signed and they therefore must stick to it?

dczombie on January 6, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Because certain things can’t be “contracted”…just because it’s a contract, doesn’t mean it’s legal.

You can’t sell a child with a contract…you can’t buy a slave with a contract…and presumably, without a detailed contract you can’t give up being a responsible father.

This is a child, that has to be cared for, a third party that is affected and did not sign into this contract.

right2bright on January 6, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Liberals are never satisfied. They always find something about which to b*tch. Except for liberals, the last time I saw this kind of thing was when I was five years old and playing with neighbor kids in my sandbox.
Liam on January 6, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Your sandbox was a sperm donation center?

I knew that I lived a sheltered childhood, but this takes the cake!

turfmann on January 6, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Tom Servo on January 6, 2013 at 9:51 AM

The lesbians are the parents. If the donor wanted visitation rights, the ‘gay community’ would fight him tooth and nail.

The pervs wanted a child, so now they have one. It’s up to them, totally and alone.

Liam on January 6, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Many things in this life are punished, but none are punished as harshly as stupidity. This donor was a complete idiot when he made this arrangement, and he richly deserves the hit he is now taking for it.

Tom Servo on January 6, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Exactly…the child’s welfare is the priority, the third party that did not sign the contract.

right2bright on January 6, 2013 at 9:54 AM

The couple went to a “legal” sperm bank with a doctor, but weren’t considered to be a “stable” couple.

Frankly, I think the other lesbian partner should have to pay the child support.

ladyingray on January 6, 2013 at 9:54 AM

I couldn’t get past the “three cupfulls” thing. In a just world sperm banks would be paying him just for showing up.

MikeA on January 6, 2013 at 9:55 AM

Your sandbox was a sperm donation center?

I knew that I lived a sheltered childhood, but this takes the cake!

turfmann on January 6, 2013 at 9:53 AM

You have NO idea of the jokes and puns I could make here…LOL

Liam on January 6, 2013 at 9:56 AM

This isn’t the first case were a gay couple split up, and 1/2 decided she was no longer responsible for the child.

GarandFan on January 6, 2013 at 9:56 AM

This is a child, that has to be cared for, a third party that is affected and did not sign into this contract.

right2bright on January 6, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Why isn’t the lesbian partner liable?

ladyingray on January 6, 2013 at 9:57 AM

If our donor was a real man, this story would be about a guy who donated sperm to a lesbian couple, and then when that “marriage” broke up, he stepped in and took custody of his child from the impoverished “mother”.

Alas, this is not to be.

BobMbx on January 6, 2013 at 9:57 AM

The pervs wanted a child, so now they have one. It’s up to them, totally and alone.

Liam on January 6, 2013 at 9:53 AM

The point is, you can’t just give away or sell children…and just because you think these “pervs” should be punished, the child is the one that should be the priority…funny how the child is not brought up, just the “pervs”.

We have laws to protect children for a reason, just because someone was stupid and didn’t follow proper procedure, doesn’t let him off the hook…

He was stupid, and now he has to pay for it…

right2bright on January 6, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Frankly, I think the other lesbian partner should have to pay the child support.

ladyingray on January 6, 2013 at 9:54 AM

I think the state should step in and remove this child. There are plenty of stable, normal couples who’d love to adopt this baby.

Do it now, do it quick. None of the 3 involved in this story will give a fat rats ass.

BobMbx on January 6, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Why isn’t the lesbian partner liable?

ladyingray on January 6, 2013 at 9:57 AM

I never said she wasn’t…but one thing is for sure, he is the father, and with that comes responsibility.

If our donor was a real man, this story would be about a guy who donated sperm to a lesbian couple, and then when that “marriage” broke up, he stepped in and took custody of his child from the impoverished “mother”.

Alas, this is not to be.

BobMbx on January 6, 2013 at 9:57 AM

One poster called them “pervs” but who is the real perv in this story?

right2bright on January 6, 2013 at 10:00 AM

This isn’t the first case were a gay couple split up, and 1/2 decided she was no longer responsible for the child.

GarandFan on January 6, 2013 at 9:56 AM

It’s rare for gay couples to remain together. The first gay couple ‘married’ in NY started ‘divorce’ proceedings six months later.

Gays are rarely monogamous. Gaydom is always about sex, not about love like between a man and a woman.

Liam on January 6, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Can’t wait for the TV movie on this one.

Gives the ” money shot ” scene, a whole new, legal, meaning.

FlaMurph on January 6, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Many things in this life are punished, but none are punished as harshly as stupidity. This donor was a complete idiot when he made this arrangement, and he richly deserves the hit he is now taking for it.

Tom Servo on January 6, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Stupidity keeps lawyers employed. :)

Wethal on January 6, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Why isn’t the lesbian partner liable?

ladyingray on January 6, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Because making gays conform to the standard common in marriage is deemed ‘homophobic’ by liberals.

Liam on January 6, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Three cups full.

(Cue the vomiting robot from the headlines thread.)

viking01 on January 6, 2013 at 10:05 AM

This is a child, that has to be cared for, a third party that is affected and did not sign into this contract.

right2bright on January 6, 2013 at 9:53 AM

So who would be responsible if the lesbians and the donor HAD gone to a doctor? Sorry, that nonsense doesn’t wash. The outcome would be the same. What many of you are advocating will enable the state to pursue ALL sperm donors. Who says the doctor’s contract is valid, if the biological parents always have responsibility and cannot contract it away?

You can’t have it both ways. The presence of the doctor, his contract and his clinic is immaterial. The fact is, in Kansas one CAN sign their parental responsibility away. (Whether they should or not is an entirely different question. IMO no, they should not. Further this entire story makes me sick.)

If the state has such an objection to the situation and a desire to have the child supported by it’s father, where was the state BEFORE THE LESBIANS broke up? Why didn’t the state take the child away and force the father to pay support THEN?

Only after the lesbians broke up did the state step in and decide the father should pay.

dogsoldier on January 6, 2013 at 10:06 AM

The point is, you can’t just give away or sell children…and just because you think these “pervs” should be punished, the child is the one that should be the priority…funny how the child is not brought up, just the “pervs”.

We have laws to protect children for a reason, just because someone was stupid and didn’t follow proper procedure, doesn’t let him off the hook…

He was stupid, and now he has to pay for it…

right2bright on January 6, 2013 at 9:58 AM

The guy shouldn’t be punished. Far as I know, sperm donors are supposed to be anonymous.

If he somehow learned who had the child of his donation, do you really think the gays would support him having visitation rights?

Work with me here. The lesbians are the ‘parents’. End of story, far as I’m concerned.

Liam on January 6, 2013 at 10:07 AM

First, both the lesbian couple and Mr. Marotta messed up quite a bit from a legal perspective. The agreement they signed was totally private and never involved a court or a lawyer.

No contract requires a court or lawyer and only needs certain elements to be valid and enforceable: Competent parties, Mutual assent, Legal purpose and Consideration. There are other things a written contract needs such as dates and signatures, but unless the law specifically prohibits the contract or requires additional elements, (witnesses, notarization)then it’s a good contract.

What Kansas seems to be saying here is that the contract doesn’t apply to the state (a third party) if the taxpayers have to pay for the child’s support. So they are hanging their hat on the technicality of not having a middleman (a doctor) directly contract with the mother.

RadClown on January 6, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Liam wrote: “The lesbians are the parents.”

Reminds me of a story sometimes attributed to Lincoln. A man was arguing with him about a definition, and Lincoln said:

“If I say that a dog’s tail is a leg, then how many legs does a dog have?”

and the man replied “Well 5, I guess.”

Lincoln: “Nope, it’s still 4. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.”

Tom Servo on January 6, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Tom Servo on January 6, 2013 at 10:11 AM

I don’t care what consenting adults do in private. But I also don’t believe gays should be raising children.

Liam on January 6, 2013 at 10:15 AM

We have laws to protect children for a reason, just because someone was stupid and didn’t follow proper procedure, doesn’t let him off the hook…

He was stupid, and now he has to pay for it…

right2bright on January 6, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Planned Parenthood and all the other murder factories disagree.

D-fusit on January 6, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Tom Servo on January 6, 2013 at 10:11 AM

No. The lesbians are the parents. The court should be going after the ex-lover.

ladyingray on January 6, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Why isn’t the lesbian partner liable?

ladyingray on January 6, 2013 at 9:57 AM

If Kansas were to make her liable, it would be a de facto recognition by Kansas of gay marriage, since you would be placing the legal spousal responsibilities of child support onto the mother’s former lesbian partner. So the ruling as it stands is not-so outrageous based on the state’s laws.

On the other hand, if you had a judge in one of the states that has legalized gay marriage make the same ruling, that would be an outrage and basically some liberal judge saying that while the state had given gay couples all the legal benefits of traditional marriage, he/she was allowing the deadbeat ex-spouse to opt out of the most important responsibility of marriage, and was going back to the traditional rule — daddy pays the child support, and daddy is defined as being the sperm donor.

(What would be interesting here is to find the woman’s ex-lover and find out what she thinks about gay marriage. Legally in Kansas right now she’s in the clear, but I wouldn’t be shocked if she turned out to be one of those whole-heartedly for same-sex unions but at the same time sees nothing wrong with sticking the poor sperm donor schlub with the costs of raising the kid she and her ex wanted to have.)

jon1979 on January 6, 2013 at 10:19 AM

I think it is interesting that Jazz Shaw chided them for not using the various apparatus of the state to do this. Can’t free Americans make their own choices Jazz?

libfreeordie on January 6, 2013 at 10:20 AM

there has to be common sense here though. He should try to get custody because the woman is nuts.

tomas on January 6, 2013 at 10:22 AM

If this type of arrangement was allowed to stand, could any guy who got a woman pregnant later show up claiming to be a “donor” in a he said, she said situation?

Let’s not pretend that it would be that hard to document the fact that the mother had a lesbian relationship. This is just silly.

CW on January 6, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Planned Parenthood and all the other murder factories disagree.

D-fusit on January 6, 2013 at 10:17 AM

The sad truth. The State now only cares who pays for the kid… not the kid. If they say it isn’t the money… it’s the money.

viking01 on January 6, 2013 at 10:22 AM

It’s rare for gay couples to remain together. The first gay couple ‘married’ in NY started ‘divorce’ proceedings six months later.

Gays are rarely monogamous. Gaydom is always about sex, not about love like between a man and a woman.

Liam on January 6, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Probably true for most male homosexuals, but the females are frequently more in it for the co-dependent emotional relationship than the sex. I know some that have been in one relationship for decades, and others that bounce from relationship to relationship.
Still, none of them are particularly happy or mentally healthy.

Count to 10 on January 6, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Can’t free Americans make their own choices Jazz?

libfreeordie on January 6, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Like for schools? Phuck off ahole.

CW on January 6, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Can’t free Americans make their own choices Jazz?

libfreeordie on January 6, 2013 at 10:20 A

M

Just because you advocate for sex between adults and kids? You’re gross.

CW on January 6, 2013 at 10:24 AM

I think it is interesting that Jazz Shaw chided them for not using the various apparatus of the state to do this. Can’t free Americans make their own choices Jazz?

libfreeordie on January 6, 2013 at 10:20 AM

The lesbians made their choices, you liberal moron. Now they’re bringing a third party who could never have been granted visitation right if he asked.

How about YOU, for once, stop being a liberal and a gay, and learn to think things through for once?

You’re disgusting, you know that? I bet you have heard that or similar after your past gay ‘lovers’ dumped you for someone better.

Pffft!

Liam on January 6, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Assuming Kansas gets the cash, a legal precedent will be established that will be a huge disincentive for legitimate sperm donations. It doesn’t matter what distinctions there may be between this idiot and a regulated clinic, once the law gets a toe hold, it wont’ be long before every sperm donor will be held liable for support.

2ndMAW68 on January 6, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Can’t free Americans make their own choices Jazz?

libfreeordie on January 6, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Not with O-Commie-Care, numbnut.

viking01 on January 6, 2013 at 10:27 AM

viking01 on January 6, 2013 at 10:22 AM

It’s always the money.

Question: Does Planned Parenthood pay taxes on the murders they commit?

Seriously, Contract Law needs a czar, I’m sure Barky will be all over this.

D-fusit on January 6, 2013 at 10:29 AM

If our donor was a real man, this story would be about a guy who donated sperm to a lesbian couple, and then when that “marriage” broke up, he stepped in and took custody of his child from the impoverished “mother”.

Alas, this is not to be.

BobMbx on January 6, 2013 at 9:57 AM

If the parties involved were responsible, the mother an father would raise the child together (regardless of the status of their sex lives). That isn’t about to happen, either.

Count to 10 on January 6, 2013 at 10:29 AM

there has to be common sense here though. He should try to get custody because the woman is nuts.

tomas on January 6, 2013 at 10:22 AM

? LOL.
Filling up cups of spooge for free and giving it to macadamia’s
from craigslist to have a baby isn’t nuts or anything.

bazil9 on January 6, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Probably true for most male homosexuals, but the females are frequently more in it for the co-dependent emotional relationship than the sex. I know some that have been in one relationship for decades, and others that bounce from relationship to relationship.
Still, none of them are particularly happy or mentally healthy.

Count to 10 on January 6, 2013 at 10:23 AM

As I mentioned earlier, the first same-sex marriage in NY ended six months later. They were women ‘committed’ to each other.

Being gay is always about the sex. Every gay group out the talks more about sex and orgasms than about love. Normal, sane, and healthy heteros, of you ask them why they’ll marry, the answer is “I love her/him.”

There is no such thing as normal healthy love among gays.

Liam on January 6, 2013 at 10:32 AM

I would think it would come down to how good the guy was at drawing a contract.

If he drew it well enough, and clearly put the legal onus on the lesbians for all support, suits, damages, responsibilities etc., he should be in the clear. Until 0bama came along, the government couldn’t just erase solid contracts.

If he did not craft a good enough document, the government lawyers will take any footbhold they can get to put him on the hook.

cane_loader on January 6, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Wait, wait, 3 cups?!
Wouldn’t it normally take most of a year to …ah…. accumulate that much?

Count to 10 on January 6, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Seriously, Contract Law needs a czar, I’m sure Barky will be all over this.

D-fusit on January 6, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Just-Us Benedict “Egomania” Roberts will likely step in (it) and call it a tax. For a price.

(There’s an interesting smack down of Justice Benedict Roberts in the weekend WSJ opinions titled “French Lessons for Chief Justice John Roberts” regarding judicial integrity, Roberts’ lack thereof and how Hollande’s millionaires tax got kicked to the curb.)

viking01 on January 6, 2013 at 10:36 AM

There was a case awhile back where the judge ruled that a woman was allowed to have herself inseminated with her ex-husband’s frozen sperm that he had banked for her benefit before a medical procedure.

IIRC, the nub was because the judge ruled that the man had given it as a gift, and so she could do whatever she wanted with it, once it was in her possession.

It was legally treated as if it had been completely separated from him by dint of its having been given as a gift, and it was in her complete control.

I do not recall whether the fellow was still forced to pay child support.

cane_loader on January 6, 2013 at 10:37 AM

So when will the reality TV show based on all this be popping up?

pilamaye on January 6, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Nuts and being stupid doesn’t make you culpable. He provided a service in good faith. this IS extortion. She should be put in jail.

tomas on January 6, 2013 at 10:38 AM

One reason that most legal contracts are so damn long is that one has to write a bunch of words to cover EVERY eventuality, because lawyers are like swarming mosquitoes on a camping trip – they will eventually find the hole in the tent and suck your blood.

cane_loader on January 6, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Eww. Well, thanks for ruining breakfast for me.

SagebrushPuppet on January 6, 2013 at 10:40 AM

I’ve worked in child support enforcement since 1989. This is not the first time something like this has happened… there are ‘turkey baster’ babies all over the country, and well meaning, but stupid, donors for each of them.

It’s a predictable outcome of the “ME, NOW” feelings that pass for ‘thought’ these days.

darkpixel on January 6, 2013 at 10:41 AM

First, both the lesbian couple and Mr. Marotta messed up quite a bit from a legal perspective. The agreement they signed was totally private and never involved a court or a lawyer. The artificial insemination was done at home with no doctor ever being involved. Yes, I understand that the process is extremely expensive in a doctor’s office and lawyers aren’t cheap, but there was no paper trail to document their agreement.

I think you are hitting the wrong notes on this. Yes, the “paper trail” is incomplete, no it is not solely because a doctor or lawyer wasn’t involved, though that is who one would commonly think to be involved.

I’m no lawyer but what is missing here is verification of the contract by eyewitnesses and those are needed, I believe when liability might involve third parties, like the State. It’s what, for various reasons and instances, notary public’s are for. It’s what witnesses are for. It’s why witnesses, for the most part are required to be disinterested (read also: not related) third parties.

Heck, having a doctor involved won’t, in and of itself, dispose of a fact that the two were lovers who sought to defraud the State. But it does reduce the likelihood of it and it does prove the contract was what it says it was: sperm for use in artificial insemination.

I’m not saying that if the two parties had covered these points in the in ways other than using a lawyer or a doctor that there wouldn’t be a problem now, but they would have some clear fundamental legal issues that address the problem covered.

Dusty on January 6, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Seriously, Contract Law needs a czar, I’m sure Barky will be all over this.

D-fusit on January 6, 2013 at 10:29 AM

D-fusit:Ahem,….

……..A Sperm Czar!
(snark)

canopfor on January 6, 2013 at 10:43 AM

I’m trying to remember (no, not really) how the courts FUBARed the infamous “turkey baster” trial where the man had used birth control but his girlfriend, wench, co-mingler, whatever… er, recycled the birth control apparatus contents creatively thus impregnating herself then chasing down and shaking down the boyfriend, “donor”, co-mingler, whatever for all manner of loot.

viking01 on January 6, 2013 at 10:45 AM

So… a man banks sperm before a medical procedure.

He dies.

His wife later chooses to be inseminated with the frozen sperm.

Is the child the man’s legal heir?

cane_loader on January 6, 2013 at 10:46 AM

It is impossible for a gay couple to provide a healthy home for children. Kids go though stages, and that requires both a mom and dad (different genders) to make that happen well.

Spare me the argument, you liberals and gays, about ‘love’. That’s a fake debate that excludes the psychology of child development.

Being a father to two great children now grown and with children of their own, with tons of help from my wife who is a woman, you gays and liberals can’t tell me a damned thing.

Take your liberalism back to HuffPO where you’ll get the accolades you constantly crave. Here, you’ll get none from me because I know better than you, by experience.

Liam on January 6, 2013 at 10:46 AM

……..A Sperm Czar!
(snark)

canopfor on January 6, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Sandra Fluke seems the perfect one for “The Job”.

viking01 on January 6, 2013 at 10:47 AM

The man never should have donated sperm to a couple that could not afford the traditional IUI procedure. IUI is not as expensive as IVF. If they couldn’t afford that, they couldn’t afford to raise children.

myrenovations on January 6, 2013 at 10:47 AM

As I mentioned earlier, the first same-sex marriage in NY ended six months later. They were women ‘committed’ to each other.

Being gay is always about the sex. Every gay group out the talks more about sex and orgasms than about love. Normal, sane, and healthy heteros, of you ask them why they’ll marry, the answer is “I love her/him.”

There is no such thing as normal healthy love among gays.

Liam on January 6, 2013 at 10:32 AM

I think some of it is that their priorities have been messed up by the Hollywood concept of romance. There are women that leave their husbands to become l*sbians just because they are closer friends with said women than they are with their husbands, and have been convinced that that means they have to ditch their husbands and jump into monogamous relationships with the other woman.
There is also the confusion about “love” with “infatuation”. “Love” is something one chooses to do, while “infatuation” is an uncontrolled emotional thing. Mush of the problems with modern relationships is that people thing that infatuation is love.

Count to 10 on January 6, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Homemade Christmas of the future to lonely lesbians:

BABY BATTER TIED WITH A BOW!

cane_loader on January 6, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Homemade Christmas GIFT, that should say!

cane_loader on January 6, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Nuts and being stupid doesn’t make you culpable. He provided a service in good faith. this IS extortion. She should be put in jail.

tomas on January 6, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Actually, I think she is trying to get money from the state, and the state is trying to get money from him.

Count to 10 on January 6, 2013 at 10:51 AM

So… you just draw up a contract:

“This is a GIFT. You may do with it whatever you wish. I am not responsible for anything you do with it, except it is NOT under any circumstances to be used for the purposes of making babies. If you make babies with it, that is on YOU!”

cane_loader on January 6, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Simple solution. Give the kid to the leftist single mom from Slate.

andycanuck on January 6, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Count to 10 on January 6, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Young women are likely to experiment a little. It happens.

While I agree Hollywood is pushing the gay thing all the time, Hollywood isn’t at fault. What is to blame, if there be any, is the liberal notion that gay is okay; that being gay is somehow ‘normal’ and that gays can possibly raise a child the same way as a married normal healthy couple. Hell’s bells! Many liberals say that gay couples are better to raise a child than normal healthy hetero parents.

I always ask straight liberals this: If you’re so pro-gay and there’s nothing wrong with it, how come you don’t indulge?

Straight liberals freak at the question.

Liam on January 6, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Is the child the man’s legal heir?

cane_loader on January 6, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Yes.

BobMbx on January 6, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Where will this go? If the past is a guide..I think I know…the women rule Domestic Law in North America.

” All while these mothers find a Family Court system in as big a hurry as herself to pin paternity on some man, any man, and to get him paying into the system. Mothers suffering sexual amnesia in record numbers has fast become a recurring theme in the Child Support System and in the best interest of bastardizing children for profit no one is held accountable when mothers lie about the biological truth. Even in the animal kingdom wild beats know and raise their own young without benefit of Government assistance, Child Support and fraud yet this appears to have become humanly impossibility for a growing number of wart hog mothers who feel it necessary to deceive, exploit, defraud, and then split the scene with a fistful of extorted dollars, a confused child, and an innocent man still stuck paying her Government Pimps at the Office of Child Extort.” I am not giving this source. You can find it on a Google search. This is because it seems really anti-female and minority and a black friend knocked me for promoting it. I can’t find the bad stuff, but who knows?

Some courts still require a male to continue child support even if DNA proves he is NOT the father. I know that his is changing but the attitude show how courts love to soak Dads.

Famous Houston case; “This year, the Texas Legislature unanimously voted to change the law. It is already on the books. DNA proof can reverse parental rights.

“And now with the passing of this law, a man who is not the father can now sort of be free of that title and the proper man can be put into place to establish that relationship,” she said.

But we learned the new legislation will not help Thomas because his case is old and the courts are looking not backward, but forward.

And the attorney general’s office confirmed for us that Thomas still must pay $52,000 in back child support — $13,000 of that is interest.” From Ray Thomas, KHOU News.

Children’s rights and father’s rights are subordinate to women’s rights if a women becomes a mother while not married. The mother alone can put the child out to be adopted even if the father is willing to raise the child by himself. Thus the mother avoids paying child financial support for 20+ years. From a practical standpoint, it is easy in Canada for a woman to hide the pregnancy from the potential father by moving to another jurisdiction for the purpose of adopting out the child without the father’s consent. The provincial government in the jurisdiction the child is born will not support the child’s right to identity and relationship with the biological father. The mother simply states falsely that she doesn’t know or have any information about the father.” Source: Canadian CRC dot com.

Women in “Boston Marriages” (So exciting! What foreshadowing that term had with gay marriage in Massachusetts!) should have the BOP to collect from the sperm donor and we need a consistent rule.

IlikedAUH2O on January 6, 2013 at 10:56 AM

They need to tell her to get lost.

tomas on January 6, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Is the child the man’s legal heir?

cane_loader on January 6, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Only if someone wants to sue his estate. Otherwise, he has no rights to the child.

Liam on January 6, 2013 at 10:59 AM

“If he drew it well enough, and clearly put the legal onus on the lesbians for all support, suits, damages, responsibilities etc., he should be in the clear.”

Not true, even before Obama. (Although Obama IS working on establishing the principle that every contract can be overturned whenever it suits him.) Private contracts have *never* been valid if they contain an element that is either illegal OR is contrary to public policy. (yes, that second part is a huge exception that few people seem to know about)

In this case, their contract violated both legs of that test. First, it was illegal because they made an agreement to take away the rights of a 3rd party, the child, who was *not* a party to the agreement. This was the right to be supported by her biological father. Now a Court, either acting directly or through Court-mandated procedures, does have the power to do such a thing, but private parties making an agreement between themselves do not. Even a Doctor only has legal authority to provide these services when he is following Court supported and sanctioned procedures. (remember, this lesbian couple tried to go to a clinic and was turned down because they could not comply with Court-sanctioned safeguards)

Their contract also violated Public Policy, as it is longstanding public policy that a child has the right to be financially supported by *both* his or her biological parents until reaching adulthood. Strange co-habitation arrangements by so-called adults do nothing to change this public policy, which is STILL in place in Kansas and elsewhere until the Legislature decides to change it.

For what it’s worth, I think it would be fair to sue the lesbian partner who’s split off now for her part in the child support as well, but I don’t think Kansas has the laws in place to make such a suit winnable. Legally, she’s just a roommate, regardless of what she said at the time, and roommates just don’t have the same legal obligations toward a child that a biological parent does. The contract they made between the three of them is void for reasons stated previously, and so it gets torn up and treated as if it never happened. I also think that the Father should be suing for custody himself, but I suspect he’s not very interested in the child either.

forgive me for going on about this, but I’ve been working a family law case the last few weeks so the topics are on my mind a lot right now.

Tom Servo on January 6, 2013 at 11:00 AM

I think it is interesting that Jazz Shaw chided them for not using the various apparatus of the state to do this.

Can’t free Americans make their own choices Jazz?

[libfreeordie on January 6, 2013 at 10:20 AM]

I find your ignorance unsurprising, but I do find it interesting that you are willing to show it here so boldly.

Dusty on January 6, 2013 at 11:02 AM

forgive me for going on about this, but I’ve been working a family law case the last few weeks so the topics are on my mind a lot right now.

Tom Servo on January 6, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Thanks for the clarification!

cane_loader on January 6, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4