TOPEKA, Kan. — A sperm donor is being ordered to pay child support to a couple he helped have a child.
William Marotta says he gave up all legal rights to the little girl.
But under Kansas law, because the couple didn’t use a doctor to get pregnant with Marotta’s sperm, the state says he’s responsible for the monthly child support payments, according to FOX 4.
Marotta met the lesbian couple through a Craigslist ad seeking a sperm donor.
The post made by couple Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner — William Marotta and his wife responded.
“They were a couple. They couldn’t have children by themselves. Its something I could help with,” Marotta told FOX 4.
Marotta says he didn’t receive any payment and signed away any parental rights long before the little girl was born.
But in October 2012, Marotta says the Kansas Department for Children and Family Services informed him he was being ordered to pay $200 a month in support.
According to court documents, the state argues that because the insemination was not performed by a licensed doctor, the sperm donor contract was null and void.
Marotta believes the state’s argument is at least partially politically motivated.
“I think if this was a lesbian couple in southern California I don’t think it would even be an issue right now,” he said.
Marotta says the child’s mothers fully support him and have told the state they are the ones who should be held responsible.
Worst of the articles I've read, but the other ones were pretty TL;DR, so I went with this one
Personally, I think that if all parties agreed that Mr. Marlotta would have nothing to do with the child after conception, and it was all written in a detailed contract, that he should not have to pay.
To clarify further, the couple themselves are not suing the donor for support. The state of Kansas is demanding money from him due to the couple's use of public assistance and a state law that requires them to disclose the name of the father, thus leading the state to him.
Personally, I think that if all parties agreed that Mr. Marlotta would have nothing to do with the child after conception, and it was all written in a detailed contract, that he should not have to pay.
That's pretty much what anyone with a functioning brain would come up with, yeah, heh.
I was expecting a ragebait story but it's basically just government being *** again. I'm disappointed, can't you supply me with some rage?
Maybe he did, that's why there was no doctor involved...either way it's a really stupid situation if not even the girls sued him.
Yeah sounds like one of them may of "looked the other way", just figured two lezzi's wouldn't exactly entertain a man entering into their relationship. Otherwise yeah ... just goes to show how f*cked up the USA can be sometimes.
It's one thing to accidentally have a child, but it seems really irresponsible to go out of your way to have a child if you don't have the means to support it without public assistance.
It's one thing to accidentally have a child, but it seems really irresponsible to go out of your way to have a child if you don't have the means to support it without public assistance.
Hence I support the possibility in the UK of families not receiving further benefit/child benefit for more than 2 children.
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that maybe they're falling on hard times, but it does raise suspicions about why they never went to an actual medical professional to do this procedure in the first place.
It's one thing to accidentally have a child, but it seems really irresponsible to go out of your way to have a child if you don't have the means to support it without public assistance.
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that maybe they're falling on hard times, but it does raise suspicions about why they never went to an actual medical professional to do this procedure in the first place.
$6000 in public assistance, Child was concieved in 2009, Kansas pays $186/month for a single child. Sounds like they've probably been getting benefits all along.
It's one thing to accidentally have a child, but it seems really irresponsible to go out of your way to have a child if you don't have the means to support it without public assistance.
This
I caught it just fine the first time, thanks. If you didn't notice, they had the child about 3 years ago. Plenty can change in that time frame.
Quote:
$6000 in public assistance, Child was concieved in 2009, Kansas pays $186/month for a single child. Sounds like they've probably been getting benefits all along.
Oh, okay then. Sure took them a while to go bother the guy about it, though.
Although according to the article they didn't seek out assistance until January 2012? I guess there could be some other sort of assistance I'm missing.
It's a tricky one.I worked on maternity for 12 years and saw plenty of families having lots of children when neither parent worked.They knew they were going to be supported by the state before they conceived.If this case sends alarm bells out then it's a good thing.
First time applications of government help can usually get a very large sum of cash once a year if they have children and their income is low enough, probably where the amount comes from. Usually a minimum of $1000 here in Texas. Straight cash and never has to be paid back.
***situation but he should just pay it and get the couple to give it back to him, no one loses out and everyone is happy
Everyone but the couple is happy lol but this is just another case of government cutting people off. I feel bad for the guy all he wanted to do was help and the women wanted to avoid a ***ton of money and papers for "Someone to approve" of them.
***situation but he should just pay it and get the couple to give it back to him, no one loses out and everyone is happy
and the state has to pay them 200$ less a month due to them having to claim the support.
i really REALLY REALLY want to say they should get *** jobs and stop leeching off the government. I realise that there are people who need support but nowhere near the quantity that get it. On top of that..... Sylow's post about not having kids you can't afford.
There are thousands of kids put up for adoption who get left to the system every year. If they COULD afford it just *** adopt a kid. Then you're getting a kid AND alleviating another ward of the state. Do it for the economy.
***situation but he should just pay it and get the couple to give it back to him, no one loses out and everyone is happy
and the state has to pay them 200$ less a month due to them having to claim the support.
i really REALLY REALLY want to say they should get *** jobs and stop leeching off the government. I realise that there are people who need support but nowhere near the quantity that get it. On top of that..... Sylow's post about not having kids you can't afford.
There are thousands of kids put up for adoption who get left to the system every year. If they COULD afford it just *** adopt a kid. Then you're getting a kid AND alleviating another ward of the state. Do it for the economy.
The only bad thing about adoption is people feel the kids wont like them. Most of these kids go in and out of homes or are in system for so long they dont think people love them. Not to say all of them but people are scare of that also the fact child services will be in your home almost every month. Adoption im all for but with the way the system is I just wouldn't really trust it.
I am STRONGLY against people having children they cannot afford. Therefore, in this case, I agree if they needed public assistance, they shouldn't have had the child.
But based on the concepts that "everyone" (Christian majority sitting on their *** watching American Idol, etc.) feels that every American has a God-given right to children, and furthering this concept by saying that every American has at least a potential legitimate claim to public assistance as needed, I think we can all agree that the terms of the contract to which they agreed is legitimate.
Quote:
but it does raise suspicions about why they never went to an actual medical professional to do this procedure in the first place.
Because medical professionals are expensive. If I were in the position of looking to assist a woman in conceiving, even I, with a decent job and health care benefits, would be loathe to approach a fertilization specialist if actual insemination was as easy as coming up with, "Hey, let's go have intercourse."
Quote:
Marotta believes the state’s argument is at least partially politically motivated.
“I think if this was a lesbian couple in southern California I don’t think it would even be an issue right now,” he said.
Marotta says the child’s mothers fully support him and have told the state they are the ones who should be held responsible.
Lets not forget that the cost of adopting an American child is as much of a deterrent as assisted conception would have been if not more.
I agree fully with the statement that people should adopt a child before they spend insane amounts of cash for assisted conception and I think we all can agree that the thousands of dollars it costs to adopt locally is stupidly high. (It's why many couples look outside the US, it's cheaper.)
From what I read and understood I am on the state's side.
People are way too naive when it comes to contracts and if you do not get professional help there it is the same as any rubbish teen myth about how to have sex but not getting pregnant.
You are responsible if you did it wrong~
TOPEKA, Kan. — A sperm donor is being ordered to pay child support to a couple he helped have a child.
William Marotta says he gave up all legal rights to the little girl.
But under Kansas law, because the couple didn’t use a doctor to get pregnant with Marotta’s sperm, the state says he’s responsible for the monthly child support payments, according to FOX 4.
Marotta met the lesbian couple through a Craigslist ad seeking a sperm donor.
The post made by couple Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner — William Marotta and his wife responded.
“They were a couple. They couldn’t have children by themselves. Its something I could help with,” Marotta told FOX 4.
Marotta says he didn’t receive any payment and signed away any parental rights long before the little girl was born.
But in October 2012, Marotta says the Kansas Department for Children and Family Services informed him he was being ordered to pay $200 a month in support.
According to court documents, the state argues that because the insemination was not performed by a licensed doctor, the sperm donor contract was null and void.
Marotta believes the state’s argument is at least partially politically motivated.
“I think if this was a lesbian couple in southern California I don’t think it would even be an issue right now,” he said.
Marotta says the child’s mothers fully support him and have told the state they are the ones who should be held responsible.
Worst of the articles I've read, but the other ones were pretty TL;DR, so I went with this one
