Judge Orders Sperm Donor To Pay Child Support

A
Kansas court ruled on Wednesday that a sperm donor must pay child
support for his offspring, because he and the mother did not
conduct their transaction through a state-approved channel.

In 2009, Jennifer Schreiner and her then-partner, Angela Bauer,
wanted to have child but didn’t want to deal with the prohibitive costs
of having a doctor manage the artificial insemination. They posted
an advertisement on Craigslist looking for a man to donate his
sperm. William Marotta rose to the occasion.

Marotta had no intention of fathering the child. He signed
a contract with the couple to relieve himself of any parental
responsibilities. He handed over a plastic cup of sperm, and
Schriener and Bauer handled the insemination process from
there.

Schriener gave birth to a girl, and eventually applied for her
daughter to receive health insurance from the state. In an exchange
that Bauer
described as “threatening,” state officials demanded to know
the identity of the donor before allowing the child to receive any
benefits. The state
wouldn’t accept child support from Bauer, since she is not a
legal guardian.

The Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCP) contacted
Marotta, insisting that he be legally declared the girl’s father,
so he could pay back $6,000 in child support and then make all
future payments. The DCP and Marotta went to court in
2012.

Solidarity
from Shriener and Bauer and proof of their contract with
Marotta wasn’t enough for the Shawnee County District Court.
Judge Mary Mattiva ruled that the donor would have to bear the
financial burden of his biological daughter, because he gave his
sperm directly to the couple instead of a properly licensed doctor.
She explains:

In this case, quite simply, the parties failed to conform to the
statutory requirements of the Kansas Parentage Act in not enlisting
a licensed physician at some point in the artificial insemination
process, and the parties’ self-designation of (Marotta) as a sperm
donor is insufficient to relieve (Marotta) of parental rights and
responsibilities.

“The Marotta decision ‘appears’ to be a case of first impression
in Kansas, the judge said. That means a specific issue in the
ruling hasn’t been dealt with before in that court, and there isn’t
binding authority on the matter,” explains the
Capital-Journal.

Marotta’s lawyer was critical of not only the outcome, but of
the DCP’s behavior. “The cost to the state to bring this case far
outweighs any benefit the state would get,” he told CNN.

Marotta announced
today that he plans to appeal the decision.