Sperm donor sued for child support

7figz

Kansas sperm donor William Marotta who is being sued by the state of Kansas to pay child support after providing sperm to a same-sex couple who split up...

A Kansas district court heard arguments Friday in the case of a man who is being sued for thousands of dollars in child support by the state after donating his sperm to a same-sex couple he found through a Craigslist ad.
William Marotta, a mechanic, and his wife Kimberly are fighting the state’s contention that the man should be required to pay child support, arguing that a Kansas law requiring a licensed doctor to perform artificial insemination is antiquated.
Marotta says he drew up a contract with the two female partners without a physician’s supervision. The agreement with the mother of the child and her partner said that Marotta would not assume parental obligations, the man said. The child is now almost four years old....

More

7figz

Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)

And why does dude look like the "kitty kat" skit guy from Saturday Night Live ?





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhc-WRc4I5w

Kat

Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)

This is obviously foul to anybody with half a brain.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

StillFaggyAF

Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)

? aren't supposed to have kids

Gold_Certificate

Fair (He should have to pay)

>2013
>Willingly giving your sperm to these hoes for any reason

StillFaggyAF

Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)

^doesnt get laid post

deadeye

Technically he's not a sperm donor.

Unless you go to an actual sperm bank and donate your sperm to that bank at random, then you're looked at as any other dude who gets a chick pregnant.

Dude got hustled.

He should've known better.

Too late now though.

Gold_Certificate

Fair (He should have to pay)

BlackGerald wrote: »

^doesnt get laid post

The ? in this story didn't smash, he just literally packaged and gave his biological information to them.

7figz

Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)

deadeye wrote: »

Technically he's not a sperm donor.

Unless you go to an actual sperm bank and donate your sperm to that bank at random, then you're looked at as any other dude who gets a chick pregnant.

Dude got hustled.

He should've known better.

Too late now though.

Still a gray area though. I mean they signed a contract saying he wouldn't be responsible right ?

I guess it all comes down whatever else is in that contract and whether or not the law will say it's valid.

Kat

Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)

Is this just the state going after him or are the women also trying to get him to pay up?

NYETOPn

He should have anticipated this.

Protect yourself at all times:

he found through a Craigslist ad

Kansas law requiring a licensed doctor to perform artificial insemination is antiquated.
Marotta says he drew up a contract with the two female partners without a physician’s supervision.

7figz

Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)

Kat wrote: »

Is this just the state going after him or are the women also trying to get him to pay up?

I believe it's the state going after them. The contract said:

The agreement signed by Marotta, Schreiner and Bauer in March 2009, said the women "hold him harmless" financially. The agreement also said the child's birth certificate would not list a father.

The law is against dude though so he's most likely ? :

Under a 1994 Kansas law, a sperm donor isn't considered the father only when a donor provides sperm to a licensed physician for artificial insemination of a woman who isn't the donor's wife. The result is an incentive for donors and prospective mothers to work with a doctor, de Rocha said.

But the couple handled the insemination themselves:

The women handled the artificial insemination themselves using a syringe, and Schreiner eventually became pregnant, according to the documents.

? it I don't know, the law sounds a little outdated but I wouldn't expect anything less from the child support office.

Gold_Certificate

Fair (He should have to pay)

There's already a precedent for states going after these pseudo-donors.

He asked for this ? .

Gold_Certificate

Fair (He should have to pay)

? climbed into the trap himself and shut the door behind him.

Meta_Conscious

Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)

what does the state benefit from forcing him to pay?
the ? could just be like nah...

Gold_Certificate

Fair (He should have to pay)

Stopitfive wrote: »

what does the state benefit from forcing hymn to pay?
the ? could just be like nah...

Probably the same "benefit" they get from making men pay child support in other cases.

MECCA1000

Fair (He should have to pay)

Craigslist tho?!

deadeye

7figz wrote: »

deadeye wrote: »

Technically he's not a sperm donor.

Unless you go to an actual sperm bank and donate your sperm to that bank at random, then you're looked at as any other dude who gets a chick pregnant.

Dude got hustled.

He should've known better.

Too late now though.

Still a gray area though. I mean they signed a contract saying he wouldn't be responsible right ?

I guess it all comes down whatever else is in that contract and whether or not the law will say it's valid.

True.

I read the rest of the article and it seemed like the contract isn't valid because the circumstances of the conception are not consistent with what constitutes a legitimate sperm donation under Kansas state law.



http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/25/21150280-kansas-judge-hears-arguments-in-case-of-sperm-donor-sued-for-child-support?lite

That makes no difference, argued Timothy Keck, an attorney for the Kansas Department of Children and Families. The lawyer said that the couple, Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, used a catheter and syringe to impregnate Schreiner at home in 2009 without a physician present.



“This is not a case about a sperm donor contract, it’s about child support,” Keck said on Friday. “[Marotta] cannot get out of his support obligations because he didn’t follow state law.



The contract they drew up means nothing.”

StoneColdMikey

Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)

It's kansas

deadeye

Stopitfive wrote: »

what does the state benefit from forcing hymn to pay?
the ? could just be like nah...

They might act like they don't want anything from him, but their situation says otherwise.

Bauer and Schreiner have separated since the artificial insemination, and have struggled financially because of an injury that left Schreiner unable to work

The smartest thing for him to do is to flip it around, sue for full custody, and get them to pay him child support.

Otherwise, he's fighting a losing battle.

unspoken_respect

Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)

Its foul but he's stupid. Did they make a pinky promise or some ? . Dumb move.

Meta_Conscious

Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)

its a nonsensical and intrusive legal precedent...
why does the government need to force ppl to seek the expertise of a doctor?
they are consenting adults and the contract they wrote up should be honored.

AZTG

Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)

Yo I swear ? is getting braver. Irs crazy cause theyre strangers to him. They got nothing to do with each other. He just donated some sperm and called it a day and now he gotta pay? ? must be the worst type of ether.

Naaa though. Im sure he will appeal it and the supreme court of kansas will over turn this judgement.

These ? yo. Got the nerve to take an unrelated mans money and not feel a certain way. Smh

7figz

Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)

Another good point:

She stressed that sperm banks regularly ship donations for the intended purpose of artificial insemination within the United States and abroad to both residential and medical facility addresses.

Schroller argued in court documents that if a donor is free of parental responsibility only when a doctor performs an insemination, ‘then any woman in Kansas could have sperm donations shipped to her house, inseminate herself without a licensed physician and seek out the donor for financial support because her actions made him a father, not a sperm donor.

‘This goes against the very purpose of the statute to protect sperm donors as well as birth mothers’.

So is this to say that any handwritten contract regarding the guardianship / support of children won't be honored ... some ? .

7figz

Foul (It's the ? 's responsibility now, let them pay)