Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Mom Confessions Mom Confessions

Man donates sperm to lesbian couple, now to pay CS?

Posted by Anonymous   + Show Post

 

Poll

Question: Is this fair to make Mr. Marotta pay child support on a sperm donation?

Options:

Yes

No

Other - please explain


Only group members can vote in this poll.

Total Votes: 960

View Results

Is this fair?

A sperm donor in Kansas is fighting a state effort to force him to pay child support for a child conceived through artificial insemination by a lesbian couple.

William Marotta, 46, of Topeka said he is "a little scared about where this is going to go, primarily for financial reasons," The Topeka Capital-Journal reported Monday.

When he donated sperm to Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner in 2009, Marotta relinquished all parental rights, including financial responsibility to the child. When Bauer and Schreiner filed for state assistance this year, the state demanded the donor's name so it could collect child support for the now 3-year-old girl. Bauer and Schreiner broke up in 2010 but co-parent their eight children, who range in age from 3 months to 25 years.

"In the long run, I think this will be a good thing, but I'm the one getting squashed," Marotta said. "I can't even believe it's gone this far at this point, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it."


Read the full story here.


Is this fair?

Posted by Anonymous on Jan. 2, 2013 at 8:20 AM
Replies (21-30):
Ms.Pteranodon
by Platinum Member on Jan. 2, 2013 at 8:45 AM
He didn't just sign away his rights though. He signed a contract that states in it he can't be pursued by the couple or in private/public or govenrnt party for child support.

There are contracts that protect donors.


Quoting momof2boy2girl:


Quoting rosemagic01:

He gave up his rights. This isn't fair at all he can't get visitation there's no way he should have to pay for the child. Thats unfair. Any other man who signs off his rights after the kid is born doesn't have to pay for the child. The women should be forced to work money issues out between them. As if they are a married couple who broke up. They took on the responsibility of the children they don't deserve a 3rd income to take care of them! 

Actually, signing away your rights only means signing away on visitation/custody. You can't get rid of financial obligation unless the child is adopted by someone else.


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
rosemagic01
by Ruby Member on Jan. 2, 2013 at 8:48 AM


Quoting momof2boy2girl:


Quoting rosemagic01:

He gave up his rights. This isn't fair at all he can't get visitation there's no way he should have to pay for the child. Thats unfair. Any other man who signs off his rights after the kid is born doesn't have to pay for the child. The women should be forced to work money issues out between them. As if they are a married couple who broke up. They took on the responsibility of the children they don't deserve a 3rd income to take care of them! 

Actually, signing away your rights only means signing away on visitation/custody. You can't get rid of financial obligation unless the child is adopted by someone else.

Ok apparently not up to date on how that works but even so he signed it away in his 'donation' I think this is bullshit still. There would be so many men responsible for tons of kids that they had no intention of having it wouldn't be fair. I think if you get your kid from a sperm donation the state should have no say on anything and hold that parent that got it at a higher level because they signed onto having the kid without a father backing. It should be as if the donor isn't even alive. 

Anonymous
by Anonymous on Jan. 2, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Okay so what you are saying is anyone who donates Sperm or Eggs are financially liable no matter what? Good to know, now I would NEVER donate my eggs or my body to a family who wants a child and can't have it. 

Quoting Anonymous:

His sperm he pays no questions asked.


Anonymous
by Anonymous - Original Poster on Jan. 2, 2013 at 8:48 AM

He didn't though, the bottom of the article says that they didn't use a licensed physician, so I guess he just personally donated to the couple. Which still sucks, but that's the loophole the State is using.

Quoting Ms.Pteranodon:

He didn't just sign away his rights though. He signed a contract that states in it he can't be pursued by the couple or in private/public or govenrnt party for child support.

There are contracts that protect donors.


Quoting momof2boy2girl:


Quoting rosemagic01:

He gave up his rights. This isn't fair at all he can't get visitation there's no way he should have to pay for the child. Thats unfair. Any other man who signs off his rights after the kid is born doesn't have to pay for the child. The women should be forced to work money issues out between them. As if they are a married couple who broke up. They took on the responsibility of the children they don't deserve a 3rd income to take care of them! 

Actually, signing away your rights only means signing away on visitation/custody. You can't get rid of financial obligation unless the child is adopted by someone else.



LyTe684
by Ruby Member on Jan. 2, 2013 at 8:49 AM

No. I think it's BS.

Ms.Pteranodon
by Platinum Member on Jan. 2, 2013 at 8:50 AM
You can be artificially insinuated without a doctor. It's called a turkey baster... Lol

But seriously that is why they are going after him.

Even though a 2007 Supreme Court ruling protects sperm donors, the state is saying this only applies when the donor is used through a sperm donation company and the procedure is done by a doctor.


Quoting Anonymous:

It wasn't done by a licensed physician? Does that mean they had sex to make the baby? That must be why the state is going after him then.

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Anonymous
by Anonymous on Jan. 2, 2013 at 8:50 AM
Hell no! Just another reason why homosexuals shouldn't have children. smh
momof2boy2girl
by Valerie on Jan. 2, 2013 at 8:52 AM
Sadly, his contract may not have been worth the paper is was written on. If the child wad not legally adopted by the other woman, then the state determines that the child is his. It sounds as if they didn't do a legal adoption.

Quoting Ms.Pteranodon:

He didn't just sign away his rights though. He signed a contract that states in it he can't be pursued by the couple or in private/public or govenrnt party for child support.



There are contracts that protect donors.




Quoting momof2boy2girl:


Quoting rosemagic01:

He gave up his rights. This isn't fair at all he can't get visitation there's no way he should have to pay for the child. Thats unfair. Any other man who signs off his rights after the kid is born doesn't have to pay for the child. The women should be forced to work money issues out between them. As if they are a married couple who broke up. They took on the responsibility of the children they don't deserve a 3rd income to take care of them! 

Actually, signing away your rights only means signing away on visitation/custody. You can't get rid of financial obligation unless the child is adopted by someone else.


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Anonymous
by Anonymous on Jan. 2, 2013 at 8:57 AM
1 mom liked this

No, they entered into an agreement, he is not legally responsible for the child in any way. I think that's a very slippery slope the state is going down. The donor should NOT have to pay child support. 

Ms.Pteranodon
by Platinum Member on Jan. 2, 2013 at 8:58 AM
1 mom liked this
Another article I read said he did have a contract. Just because they didn't use a physician doesn't mean they didn't have a contract, the state is just trying to say it is invalid because they didn't go through a clinic.

"Marotta, Bauer and Schreiner signed an agreement saying Marotta would be paid $50 per semen donation, with the arrangement including a clear understanding that he would have no parental rights whatsoever with the child or children.

The agreement also called for Bauer and Schreiner to hold Marotta harmless “for any child support payments demanded of him by any other person or entity, public or private, including any district attorney’s office or other state or county agency, regardless of the circumstances or said demand.”

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/12/29/3986152/state-pursuing-child-support-from.html#storylink=cpy"




Quoting Anonymous:

He didn't though, the bottom of the article says that they didn't use a licensed physician, so I guess he just personally donated to the couple. Which still sucks, but that's the loophole the State is using.

Quoting Ms.Pteranodon:

He didn't just sign away his rights though. He signed a contract that states in it he can't be pursued by the couple or in private/public or govenrnt party for child support.



There are contracts that protect donors.





Quoting momof2boy2girl:


Quoting rosemagic01:

He gave up his rights. This isn't fair at all he can't get visitation there's no way he should have to pay for the child. Thats unfair. Any other man who signs off his rights after the kid is born doesn't have to pay for the child. The women should be forced to work money issues out between them. As if they are a married couple who broke up. They took on the responsibility of the children they don't deserve a 3rd income to take care of them! 

Actually, signing away your rights only means signing away on visitation/custody. You can't get rid of financial obligation unless the child is adopted by someone else.





Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)