canucks since 77 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 A sperm donor in the U.S. is fighting an effort to force him to pay support for a same-sex couple's child, who was conceived through artificial insemination. William Marotta told a Topeka newspaper in Kansas that he's "a little scared about where this is going to go, primarily for financial reasons." When the 46-year-old donated sperm to Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner in 2009, Marotta relinquished all parental rights, including financial responsibility. When Bauer and Schreiner filed for state assistance in Kansas this year, the state demanded the donor's name so it could collect child support for the now three-year-old girl. The state contends the agreement between Marotta and the women is not valid because Kansas law requires a licensed physician to perform artificial insemination.'I resent the fact that Jennifer was pressured into doing that in the first place. That was wrong — wrong by the state.'—William Marotta "If a sperm donor makes his contribution through a licensed physician and a child is conceived, the donor is held harmless under state statute. In cases where the parties do not go through a physician or a clinic, there remains the question of who actually is the father of a child or children," Angela de Rocha, a spokeswoman for the Kansas Department for Children and Families, said in a statement. A hearing on a motion by Marotta's attorneys to dismiss the case is scheduled for Jan. 8 Couple backs donor's fight Bauer and Schreiner have said they fully support Marotta's efforts to fight the state's request. When Bauer was diagnosed in March with what she calls "a significant illness" that prevents her from working, Schreiner sought health insurance for their daughter from the state. The DCF told Schreiner if she didn't provide the sperm donor's name, it would deny any health benefits because she was withholding information. Marotta said Monday he doesn't resent Schreiner for giving the state his name. "I resent the fact that Jennifer was pressured into doing that in the first place," he said. "That was wrong — wrong by the state." Marotta and his wife, Kimberly, have no biological children, but care for foster children. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/01/02/us-sperm-donor-kansas-court-lesbian-couple.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksSayEh Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 M'erica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stexx Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 not what i was expecting at all from the title, seems strange from the states POV. wouldnt a simple pathology test and a notarized signature from time of conception that he was relinquishing rights to the child be enough? "If a sperm donor makes his contribution through a licensed physician and a child is conceived, the donor is held harmless under state statute. In cases where the parties do not go through a physician or a clinic, there remains the question of who actually is the father of a child or children," yes because we have no methods to determine this whatsoever! gotta love bureaucracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colt 45s Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 not what i was expecting at all from the title, seems strange from the states POV. wouldnt a simple pathology test and a notarized signature from time of conception that he was relinquishing rights to the child be enough? "If a sperm donor makes his contribution through a licensed physician and a child is conceived, the donor is held harmless under state statute. In cases where the parties do not go through a physician or a clinic, there remains the question of who actually is the father of a child or children," yes because we have no methods to determine this whatsoever! gotta love bureaucracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 This is kafka. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 not what i was expecting at all from the title, seems strange from the states POV. wouldnt a simple pathology test and a notarized signature from time of conception that he was relinquishing rights to the child be enough? "If a sperm donor makes his contribution through a licensed physician and a child is conceived, the donor is held harmless under state statute. In cases where the parties do not go through a physician or a clinic, there remains the question of who actually is the father of a child or children," yes because we have no methods to determine this whatsoever! gotta love bureaucracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks since 77 Posted January 2, 2013 Author Share Posted January 2, 2013 legal or factual question? Forgive my ignorance Wet, but what is the difference? Small words please, I'm not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. Thanks. Hank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 legal or factual question? Forgive my ignorance Wet, but what is the difference? Small words please, I'm not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. Thanks. Hank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hudson bay rules Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 She could've claimed to not know. Silly woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colt 45s Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 William Marotta is the biological father and that fact is agreed upon. The legal question is do the usual legal rights and obligations as a father apply in this case or have those rights been negated by virtue of the agreement between the lesbian couple and the Marotta. If the court rules those rights continue at law then the state of Kansas can pursue Marotta as the legal father and seek repayment of state benefits that would normally be the responsibility of the father. It is common practise that a father who defaults on support payments or refuses to be responsible can be pursued to repay benefits paid out to a child or spouse by a government agency such as BC Income Assistance. It happens all the time in BC and other jurisdictions. This case is different because the legal question is whether Marotta is in law the father and responsible to repay Kansas government benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks since 77 Posted January 2, 2013 Author Share Posted January 2, 2013 William Marotta is the biological father and that fact is agreed upon. The legal question is do the usual legal rights and obligations as a father apply in this case or have those rights been negated by virtue of the agreement between the lesbian couple and the Marotta. If the court rules those rights continue at law then the state of Kansas can pursue Marotta as the legal father and seek repayment of state benefits that would normally be the responsibility of the father. It is common practise that a father who defaults on support payments or refuses to be responsible can be pursued to repay benefits paid out to a child or spouse by a government agency such as BC Income Assistance. It happens all the time in BC and other jurisdictions. This case is different because the legal question is whether Marotta is in law the father and responsible to repay Kansas government benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colt 45s Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 The bulb just got brighter. Thanks Wet. Hank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.DirtyDangles Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Uhhh sorry ladies . Just like that promiscuos reporter who was demanding that the tax payers pay for her birth control. LMMMFAO ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 So they are using a technicality to get money from him? Next time don't respond to an ad on craigslist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trelane42 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Of things to come I don’t blame the state of Kansas for not wanting to be on the hook for paying additional welfare to a pair of dunces but the clause about needing to go through a licensed physician, for a procedure that eh… every juvenile is qualified to perform, is absurd and just begs for a challenge. Since both parties acknowledged that the handing over of the seed would entail no future responsibility the matter is settled under contract law. Now that jurisdictions offer liability protection for donors and allow same-sex adoptions, the rest logically follows, unless the sole purpose of the act is to furnish business to ‘licensed’ physicians. Default liberal position neatly encapsulated here--anything goes so long as someone else pays for it, certainly not the lesbians, the donor, the state treasury or the pea brained legislature that allowed all of it. On a related subject, I can’t wait when in the coming years legions of dissatisfied/genuinely troubled people come forth to claim restitution on account of being raised in same-sex households. Yes Dorothy, we’re not in Kansas anymore and "the kids are [not always] all right.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.