An Interesting Case Involving Same Sex Couples, Adoption and Child Support

[klunderbunker]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...mands-that-sperm-donor-pay-child-support?lite

Kansas demands that sperm donor pay child support
By NBC staff and wire services

A Kansas man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple three years ago is fighting the state’s demand that he pay child support.

The two women raising the 3-year-old girl say they support the man, who responded to an ad they posted on the Craigslist website in 2009, the Topeka Capital-Journal reported.

The issue of child support arose when the two women broke up, and the couple applied for state services. Workers at the Kansas Department for Children and Families demanded the donor’s name and then filed a child-support claim against him, the newspaper said.

Angela Bauer, one of the mothers, told the Capital-Journal that she and her former partner, Jennifer Schreiner, support the donor, William Marotta, “in whatever action he wants to go forward with” to fight the state's demand.

"This was a wonderful opportunity with a guy with an admirable, giving character who wanted nothing more than to help us have a child," the newspaper quoted Bauer, 40, as saying. "I feel like the state of Kansas has made a mess out of the situation."

When Bauer and Schreiner, the 34-year-old birth mother, reached a deal with Marotta that did not include any payment for his sperm donation, he signed a written agreement that relinquished all parental rights and held him harmless “for any child support payments demanded of him by any other person or entity, public or private ... regardless of the circumstances or said demand,” it said.

The state argued in court papers that because the insemination wasn’t performed by a licensed physician, the contract was null and void.

When the two women split in 2010, they had eight children, including some they adopted, whom they now co-parent.

Marotta, a 43-year-old mechanic, was dragged into the dispute when the couple filed for state assistance. The state insisted that they reveal the donor’s identity, saying that if they refused to do so, their daughter would no longer be eligible for health care coverage. The women reluctantly complied, the Capital-Journal reported.

The girl’s birth certificate does not include her biological father’s name, and the Capital-Journal said that he had no contact with the girl, other than receiving occasional email updates from Bauer. Both women adopted the girl, although they had to file for adoption separately because the state does not recognize same-sex unions, the newspaper said. This means that the state also cannot collect child support from same-sex parents.

"More and more gays and lesbians are adopting and reproducing, and this, to me, is a step backward," said Bauer, who formerly supported the family financially but is no longer able to work due to a "serious illness." "I think a lot of progressive movement is happening currently in the world as far as gays and lesbians go. Maybe this is Kansas' stand against some of that."

The Capital-Journal could not reach Marotta for comment and the Kansas Department for Children and Families declined to discuss the case, citing privacy laws.

This isn’t the first time states have demanded child support from sperm donors. But in most of those cases, the sperm donor was known to the birth family – usually a man who was friendly with a lesbian couple and who agreed to help them out.

Court rulings vary
Sperm donors who donate through a sperm bank are typically protected by state parenting shield laws. But in less straight-forward cases, courts have differed on whether the men should pay up.

A Massachusetts court ruled this year that a Nigerian immigrant had to pay child support for twins conceived through artificial insemination a year after he and his wife had separated, the Patriot Ledger reported.

And In Vermont, a man who donated sperm to a female friend was required to pay child support because he maintained a relationship with the children.

Explained one of the mothers to The Associated Press in 2007: "Part of the decision came down because he was so involved with them. It wasn't that he went to the (sperm) bank and that was it. They called him Papa."

In New York, a married doctor agreed to donate sperm to a young resident and her partner in the late 1980s, only to be asked 18 years later for child support, the New York Post reported.

His undoing was sending money and cards to the child, which he would sign, “Dad” or “Daddy.” The biological father’s name was also on the birth certificate.

But in Washington state, the Court of Appeals ruled in 2004 that a donor can’t be required to pay child support unless he and the mother have signed an explicit contract.

And in Texas, an appeals court ruled in favor of a former policeman who donated sperm to a woman he had been formerly connected with. He had paid thousands of dollars in child support for twins until the court ruled in his favor.

When the lawsuit was filed in 2008, the man told McClatchy: "I was totally blown away. I was already married and had moved on with my life."

NBC's Isolde Raftery and The Associated Press contributed reporting.

For those of you too lazy to read a relatively short article, a lesbian couple had a child through artificial insemination through the use of sperm acquired via a sperm bank. The donor has had no in person contact with the child and only receives occasional e-mails from one of the parents with updates about how the child is doing.

Now the couple is splitting and since same sex unions aren't recognized in Kansas, the state insisted that either the name of the donor be given so he could have a child support claim filed against him, or the child would lose its access to healthcare coverage (gee that seems to be a constant problem in this country doesn't it?). The women agreed to it although both have stated they don't think this is fair and that they were backed into a corner. The former couple have a total of eight children.

What's your take on this? A few questions for possible discussion (feel free to ask your own or expand on any of these):

1. Should the man be held accountable for the well being of this child?

2. Should the women be eligible for state assistance given the amount of children they have adopted?

3. What would you do to fix this situation?

 

[Slyfox696]

This whole situation is ridiculous, on so many levels. In fact, it almost pisses me off at how much logic has been forgotten. I won't go through the list of things wrong with this, but no, the guy should not be forced to support the child because he has a legal contract which states he is not financially responsible. If the state doesn't want to support the child, then take it up with the mothers. But the state should not be able change the terms of a contract signed between two adults, when there is no dispute on the contract and when the contract doesn't violate any laws.

 

[klunderbunker]

This whole situation is ridiculous, on so many levels. In fact, it almost pisses me off at how much logic has been forgotten. I won't go through the list of things wrong with this, but no, the guy should not be forced to support the child because he has a legal contract which states he is not financially responsible. If the state doesn't want to support the child, then take it up with the mothers. But the state should not be able change the terms of a contract signed between two adults, when there is no dispute on the contract and when the contract doesn't violate any laws.

The state said the contract was null and void because the place where the procedure was done wasn't licensed.

 

[Slyfox696]

The state said the contract was null and void because the place where the procedure was done wasn't licensed.

Yes, I read that. Unfortunately, for logic and common sense, that's not a valid argument. Unless it was specified in the contract that the procedure was to be done by a licensed physician, the contract would still be legal and binding.

At least under common sense.

 

[klunderbunker]

Yes, I read that. Unfortunately, for logic and common sense, that's not a valid argument. Unless it was specified in the contract that the procedure was to be done by a licensed physician, the contract would still be legal and binding.

At least under common sense.

Oh I understand the common sense part of it, but this is Kansas, where stuff like this somehow makes sense.

As for the question, of course the guy shouldn't have to pay. He's had zero contact with this kid and had no intention to. The mothers had no intention to ask him to, but all of a sudden Kansas has decided that he, an innocent bystander in all this, should have to pay. This is the kind of reaction you get for trying to do something nice for someone else. There's no way he should have to pay a dime, as now he and his family have to suffer for a problem that has no connection to him whatsoever.

 

[HBsam31]

No this man should not be responsible to pay anything for this child, and my fear is that if more cases like this come up it will make other men reluctant to donate sperm. It is a great thing for two people that cannot have kids on their own to find people that are willing to do this for them, and we don't need to give said people reason not to want to help these families. The second part of the question is what bothers me about the women. Why on earth would these women have 8 children, and then ask for state assistance. To me that is just silly. If you can't afford the children why would you continue to adopt? I know they were together and then separated, but honestly they should have thought of that. My wife and I have one child, and if we really really really cut corners we might be able to afford a second child so my common sense tells me we should not have 3. Now that the kids are in their care I don't think the state should turn their backs on them, but we as a society really need stop having kids that we cannot afford. The fact that they do have 8 children and need state assistance is for me actually a bigger issue than the guy getting shaken down for support money by the state. This is just kind of a cluster of a situation, and I hope for the sake of the kids that it all turns out ok.

 

[HBK-aholic]

No this man should not be responsible to pay anything for this child, and my fear is that if more cases like this come up it will make other men reluctant to donate sperm. It is a great thing for two people that cannot have kids on their own to find people that are willing to do this for them, and we don't need to give said people reason not to want to help these families. The second part of the question is what bothers me about the women. Why on earth would these women have 8 children, and then ask for state assistance. To me that is just silly. If you can't afford the children why would you continue to adopt? I know they were together and then separated, but honestly they should have thought of that. My wife and I have one child, and if we really really really cut corners we might be able to afford a second child so my common sense tells me we should not have 3. Now that the kids are in their care I don't think the state should turn their backs on them, but we as a society really need stop having kids that we cannot afford. The fact that they do have 8 children and need state assistance is for me actually a bigger issue than the guy getting shaken down for support money by the state. This is just kind of a cluster of a situation, and I hope for the sake of the kids that it all turns out ok.

If you and your wife split up for whatever reason, would you be able to afford to pay for 2 separate households, plus the needs of 2 children? By your own admission, if you want a second child you'll have to 'really really cut corners'; something which is unlikely to be possible in the event of a divorce. Also, what if you or your wife become 'seriously ill' tp the extent you couldn't work as in this story - could you afford your 2 children, then? In that situation, is it at least a possibility that one of you would have to file for state assistance to ensure that your children are looked after?

I agree with the thinking that people should not have children they can't afford - but this family could afford them. If you're already receiving assistance, and then go on to have more children, it is a selfish and irresponsible thing to do. But I'm sure there are many couples who, combined, can afford their children, but may need a little assistance in the event of a break-up and the family earnings decreasing by half.

Furthermore, the family were not just popping out children - they were adopting some of them; children who were already costing the state a lot of money.

I, of course, agree with everyone else that this man should in no way be forced to pay child support. The parents are these 2 women. All this story will do is put many more men off of the idea of sperm donation.

 

[HBsam31]

If you and your wife split up for whatever reason, would you be able to afford to pay for 2 separate households, plus the needs of 2 children? By your own admission, if you want a second child you'll have to 'really really cut corners'; something which is unlikely to be possible in the event of a divorce. Also, what if you or your wife become 'seriously ill' tp the extent you couldn't work as in this story - could you afford your 2 children, then? In that situation, is it at least a possibility that one of you would have to file for state assistance to ensure that your children are looked after?

I agree with the thinking that people should not have children they can't afford - but this family could afford them. If you're already receiving assistance, and then go on to have more children, it is a selfish and irresponsible thing to do. But I'm sure there are many couples who, combined, can afford their children, but may need a little assistance in the event of a break-up and the family earnings decreasing by half.

Furthermore, the family were not just popping out children - they were adopting some of them; children who were already costing the state a lot of money.

I, of course, agree with everyone else that this man should in no way be forced to pay child support. The parents are these 2 women. All this story will do is put many more men off of the idea of sperm donation.

I hear you, and to be honest I overlooked the part that said the woman that did the supporting got seriously ill. Once I read 8 kids I kind of lost my focus. I have a 1 year old, and just reading about someone having 8 kids gave me a headache lol. I still think that is too many kids to have, but that is just my opinion. One thing I think we both agree on is someone needs to do something about donors being forced to pay support, or a lot of people aren't even going to be able to have one kid because this surely will hinder men from donating sperm.