I don't even know how to title this

[BOP]

In the "bizzaro world we live in" department:

Court case query: Is Topeka man a sperm donor or father? | CJOnline.com

Topekan William Marotta sought only to become a sperm donor — but now the state of Kansas is trying to have him declared a father.

Nearly four years ago, Marotta donated sperm in a plastic cup to a lesbian couple after responding to an ad they had placed on Craigslist.

Marotta and the women, Topekans Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, signed an agreement holding him harmless for support of the child, a daughter Schreiner bore after being artificially inseminated.

But the Kansas Department for Children and Families is now trying to have Marotta declared the 3-year-old girl’s father and forced to pay child support. The case is scheduled for a Jan. 8 hearing in Shawnee County District Court.

[Radiant1]

Originally Posted by BOP

In the "bizzaro world we live in" department:

Court case query: Is Topeka man a sperm donor or father? | CJOnline.com

Topekan William Marotta sought only to become a sperm donor — but now the state of Kansas is trying to have him declared a father.

Nearly four years ago, Marotta donated sperm in a plastic cup to a lesbian couple after responding to an ad they had placed on Craigslist.

Marotta and the women, Topekans Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, signed an agreement holding him harmless for support of the child, a daughter Schreiner bore after being artificially inseminated.

But the Kansas Department for Children and Families is now trying to have Marotta declared the 3-year-old girl’s father and forced to pay child support. The case is scheduled for a Jan. 8 hearing in Shawnee County District Court.

The signed agreement is evidence of the intent of all three adult parties involved; it was very clear. BOTH women should be responsible for the child, not the sperm donor. Boo on the Kansas DCF!

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Radiant1

The signed agreement is evidence of the intent of all three adult parties involved; it was very clear. BOTH women should be responsible for the child, not the sperm donor. Boo on the Kansas DCF!

I think he should have to pay.
It will serve as a warning to others that might be thinking about helping homosexual couples have kids.

[philibusters]

Originally Posted by Radiant1

The signed agreement is evidence of the intent of all three adult parties involved; it was very clear. BOTH women should be responsible for the child, not the sperm donor. Boo on the Kansas DCF!

But that is not the crux of the problem. The problem is not that the two lesbian parents are seeking child support payments from the sperm donor. The problem is that the lesbian parents are not doing well financially and are receiving state support. The state of Kansas thus took action.

Its a tricky case, even if the signed agreement does not qualify under the Kansas law because a medical doctor did not do the artifical insemination, like you I think the contract would be binding between the sperm donor and the two lesbian parents. Where it gets tricky is that the Department of Social Services of Kansas (and more generally the state of Kansas) did not sign that contract, so if it doesn't meet the requirements of the state statute (which specifies what steps have to be taken to insulate a sperm donor from parental responsibility), why should Kansas be binded by the contract. They did not sign.

It is kind of a tricky issue.

[Radiant1]

Originally Posted by philibusters

But that is not the crux of the problem. The problem is not that the two lesbian parents are seeking child support payments from the sperm donor. The problem is that the lesbian parents are not doing well financially and are receiving state support. The state of Kansas thus took action.

Its a tricky case, even if the signed agreement does not qualify under the Kansas law because a medical doctor did not do the artifical insemination, like you I think the contract would be binding between the sperm donor and the two lesbian parents. Where it gets tricky is that the Department of Social Services of Kansas (and more generally the state of Kansas) did not sign that contract, so if it doesn't meet the requirements of the state statute (which specifies what steps have to be taken to insulate a sperm donor from parental responsibility), why should Kansas be binded by the contract. They did not sign.

It is kind of a tricky issue.

This should be no different than if a father/mother couple sought state support. From what I gathered in the article, it's not the lesbian couple who are seeking child support, it's the state of Kansas. In addition, it mentioned only one parent who was seeking state support, so where's the other woman and why isn't she the one they're going after?

[Lurk]

Originally Posted by Radiant1

This should be no different than if a father/mother couple sought state support. From what I gathered in the article, it's not the lesbian couple who are seeking child support, it's the state of Kansas. In addition, it mentioned only one parent who was seeking state support, so where's the other woman and why isn't she the one they're going after?

One is lead to wonder, if the state is willing to go after a sperm donor for a couple, why won't they go after bebe's daddy when the woman is single?

[Radiant1]

Originally Posted by Lurk

One is lead to wonder, if the state is willing to go after a sperm donor for a couple, why won't they go after bebe's daddy when the woman is single?

I think the majority of states do, or at least try to.

[Merlin99 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by bcp

I think he should have to pay.
It will serve as a warning to others that might be thinking about helping homosexual couples have kids.

Sometimes you're the vilest person in this place.

[MarieB]

Originally Posted by Radiant1

The signed agreement is evidence of the intent of all three adult parties involved; it was very clear. BOTH women should be responsible for the child, not the sperm donor. Boo on the Kansas DCF!

Another article mentioned that it is not legally binding because the insemination was not performed by a licensed professional


Ewww

[MadDogMarine]

Originally Posted by MarieB

Another article mentioned that it is not legally binding because the insemination was not performed by a licensed professional
Ewww

There is also other legal precedent involving somewhat similar facts.
Man Receives Oral Sex; Must Pay Child Support?! - Legal As She Is Spoke
"On one of these intimate occasions, Dr. Irons did something rather remarkable: After fellating Dr. Phillips, she held his semen in her mouth (where it was suitable to sustain viability) and then inseminated herself with it. She did not inform Dr. Phillips of her actions."

"Dr. Phillips argued that his ex-fiancé took his property, his sperm, without his permission to conceive a child. Dr. Irons countered by asserting the sperm was a gift: Dr. Phillips delivered it to her with the intention that she keep it because if he really wanted to retain his semen, he would have put on a condom and “kept its contents”.

The court agreed with Dr. Irons: Dr. Phillips cannot claim he was deprived of his property because he did not intend that the semen be returned.

Basically, if you father a child and the paternity is established, you are on the hook for child support payments.
But the courts don’t care about how the egg was actually fertilized: because at the end of the day, there’s a child now involved. And the concern, from a legal perspective, is whether or not the child will be adequately cared for, regardless of its conception."

This could very well be why men are DEMANDING she swallow????, otherwise it could well be the most expensive BJ in your life. No wonder the hooker/escort business is booming! A $1,000.00 call girl, in comparison, is cheap if a man refuses to hold his libido in check.
Maybe I should invent an "anti-viagra" to have the opposite effect. Some already say there is a solution, a picture of your mother in-law!