"TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) -- 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 (bit.ly/132b7Ji) 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 **** thing I can do about it."
"Though his attorneys, Benoit Swinnen and Hannah Schroller, are charging him reduced rates, Marotta said he expects the legal fees to eventually be more than he can afford. He is predominantly a mechanic but said he is currently working in a different field. He and his wife, Kimberly, have no biological children but care for foster children.
________
A curious case. The answer, of course, is to not be flippant with your sperm.
On the one hand, society does not owe it to the child or her parents to provide her with services free of charge if there is a parent capable of covering the costs.
On another hand, the father entered into the agreement fully expecting that he would be absolved of all costs. In essence, he beleived he was selling his sperm 'as is, where is'.
On yet another hand, the women assumed the responsibilities for the costs of raising the children to whom they gave birth. They have eight children between them (the article does not state if they are all born to one of the women, or if each of them gave birth to some of them).
That the women have 'split' does not absolve them of the responsibility they assumed. Why they have split after having eight children together I do not know. I find it curious that the split seems to be coincident with the one's contracting of a 'serious illness'. Did they split so that she would qualify for benefits?
Nor does the sperm donor's desire to bear no responsibility for the product of his transaction entitle him to burden society with that cost. He was apparently well aware that it was the intent of the women to produce a child with his sperm. His agreement was that they would not hold him financially responsible, however, they have no authority to sign such an agreement for the state, and the state is in no way obligated to honour the terms of an agreement they did not sign. By signing the agreement, the women accepted the costs of raising the child. In the process of abrogating that responsibility, they passed those costs on to those where not a party to the agreement to deny the donor's financial responsibility.
At least, that is how I see it.
Replies (14)
This part is what I hate to see.
"When Bauer and Schreiner filed for state assistance this year, "
Just more of the spread your and let Regret pay for it ****.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Jan 2, 2013, at 3:26 PM
-- Posted by Nil on Wed, Jan 2, 2013, at 4:07 PM
So if I father a child out of wedlock I'm completely void of any financial responsibility? Courts don't have paternity testing?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 2, 2013, at 4:14 PM
"If it was , I don't see how the it's the male's problem."
The two women only had the authority to relinquish any claim they may have had upon his obligations to the child. They could not sign away any claim the state, or any other entity which found itself financially responsible for the child, might have to support the child.
If the women had fulfilled their financial obligation, there would be no question about it, and no one would be pursuing him.
When the states began to find the cost of raising poor children too high, after willingly assuming the role of providing for them, they began to seek methods of recouping those costs, when possible. 'Deadbeat dads' legislation was one method of doing so. The state required women who applied for assistance for the children to name the father, so that his financial status could be determined. Many women tried to avoid this, as they sought to shield the fathers from financial obligation. Usually, I think, this was done in an effort to avoid having the father obtain any legal claim for visitation or custody rights to the child. As long as the dad remained a deadbeat, whether because he didn't want the child or he didn't know about it, he was not likely to claim any rights thereupon. Once the 'deadbeat' status was removed, the dad was likely to start wanting access to the child, if for no other reason to check on the status of his investment. That sounds cold, but when a man invests a considerable sum of money into any venture, even if that venture is the raising of a stranger's child, he usually wants to know that his investment is paying dividends.
Thus, an agreement between the woman or, in this case, the women who would raise the child does not alter the fact that the dad is a deadbeat, based on the definition, and the state sees it in their interests to pursue him, they having been asked to pay the costs of raising him.
Nor is this lacking in precedent. In many divorce cases, for example, divorcing parents have signed quitclaim deads over jointly-signed loan obligations such as a house or automobile. The deeds absolve on party of any obligation to pay the loan in exchange for an agreement to not claim any ownership of the house, car, or whatever may be borrowed. But the agreement is only between the two parties, even if it is a legal and notarized part of the divorce settlement. The lending institution which loaned the money to the two of them jointly and did not sign any agreement absolving one of them of their obligation, is not required to honour that agreement if the party that assumed responsibility defaults on their payments. The husband may have assumed the note on the house as part of the agreement but, if he misses his payments, the bank will go after both of them, agreement or no agreement. After all, they both agreed to pay for it when they took out the loan.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 2, 2013, at 4:23 PM
If you purchase a rebuilt engine and have it installed in your car... does the engine rebuilder become partially responsible for all other expenses associated with the car?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 2, 2013, at 4:25 PM
"If you want the women held responsible for their shared responsibilities then first step would be for the state to officially recognize those shared responsibilities.
This whole mess could have been much cleaner & easier if Kansas permitted domestic partnerships or gay marriage."
That would change nothing. Biologically, the father is still the father, whether he had an agreement with the women or not. If the women decided not to uphold their bargain, then the state is justified in pursuing the paternal father, the 'deadbeat dad', according to the law.
If the father wanted to be free and clear, the law would have to allow for a 'fiscal abortion'. That is to say, just as the law permits the mother to physically abort a child at any time prior to delivery, so the father could be given permission to fiscally abort his responsibility at any time before birth. Then, just as the mother's decision to abort or not to abort holds the fathers' wallet hostage, so the father's decision would provide the mother a financial understanding that, in choosing to have the child, she is doing so with the full understanding that father is out of the picture both physically and financially.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 2, 2013, at 4:29 PM
"Who is the state to over-ride a person's personal responsibilty of their personal decisions?"
When the person turns the financial responsibility for the child over to the state, the person grants to the state the license to determine how best to fulfil that obligation, to they not?
It is too late now to argue whether or not the state ought to be assuming the financial costs of raising the children of those who can't or won't meet that obligation themselves. We have long since granted that authority to them. As the cost of doing so became too much of a burden, we granted them the authority to seek out the finances of those responsible for bringing the children into the world, to determine if they have the financial means to assume those costs. That is to say, we let the state decide if they were merely 'deadbeats' and, if they were, to wrest some of their finances from them to offset those costs they would otherwise impose on society, through the state.
In this regard, it is not unlike 'Obamacare', except that 'Obamacare' seeks to do so pre-emptorily. That is, 'Obamacare' assumes we are all deadbeats and orders us to assume those costs even before they have actually be incurred. We have not granted government that authority, but it has sought to assume it anyway.
But, I digress. We do not believe, generally, that people should be able to walk away from their obligations lightly, particularly when those obligations are to innocent children. If the women didn't want the man to have to pay, then they should have covered his obligations. When they failed to do so, whatever agreement he had with them went by the wayside.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 2, 2013, at 4:38 PM
"Any legislation affecting one sex , and one sex only , is not only sexual discrimination , it is against every "Equal Opportunity Act" ever En-acted."
I do not beleive the legislation is gender-specific. It is called 'Deadbeat Dad' legislation in the same manner that the Affordable care Act is called 'Obamacare', it is just a catchy moniker.
As I understand the bills, they also allow the government to recoup costs form 'deadbeat moms' who dump the costs of raising their children onto the state despite having the resources to provide for them.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 2, 2013, at 4:43 PM
"With-out any self responsibilty , eventually the Government will run ever part of a person's life."
This is always the risk one runs when one turns one responsibilities over to the state. If the woman wants the state to be the financial father to the child, does that not give the state a role as the woman's partner in decisions regarding the child's raising.
"Shut up and sign the checque" may be what the woman is asking, but it is not likely to be the result of her decision to place the state in the role of financial father.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 2, 2013, at 4:56 PM
"Does the State over-ride a woman's personal decision to abort ? If so , when ?"
About 40 years ago, but not much since (sadly).
Again, applying the financial arguement, however, it would be logical for the woman who seeks a state-funded abortion to have the state say 'no' or 'prove that it is needed'. However, we have largely accepted that the killing of babies at state expense is an endeavor that needs to be carried out 'no questions asked'...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 2, 2013, at 4:59 PM
Is it a crime in the U.S. to sell body parts?
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jan 2, 2013, at 6:52 PM
Rick, I asked because I don't know. I remember picking up a couple of hitch-hikers in the '5os that said they just got out of jail and had sold blood for bus money, we took them to the bus station.
Just wondering if it was legal to sell body parts and if sperm qualified as a body part.
This whole scenario of two dads or two moms runs against the grain of my thinking of what nature intended.
A preacher once told me sin cannot be undone and I reckon this a situation that can't be made right by courts and our opinions.
The biological father IMO should have no legal liability unless he delivered a defective product. That doesn't mean he's in any better moral standing than those he contracted with. Let the civil courts deal with it.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jan 2, 2013, at 10:10 PM
Old John,
Unless he delivered the sperm up real close and personal like.... I see where he has no liability to them or the state. He produced a product, they purchased and used it. It obviously was not a defective product.... it worked. Let the state take the money for the child's upkeep out of the welfare they intend on paying the mother.
What a mess of moral degenerates in my opinion!
As far as the blood selling, I had a friend, since past on, who had a self destructive daughter who went to California with her boyfriend and lived together for a couple of years. They sunk so low they had to sell their blood to live and to finally manage bus tickets back to Missouri. Last I heard from them, they were married, he was a doctor and they had two children. I think they learned a very valuable lesson on life, unaided by today's self corrupting welfare system.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 2, 2013, at 10:43 PM
"Is it a crime in the U.S. to sell body parts?"
Yes. And that is one of the curiosities of our system.
Organ donation is encouraged of society. There have even been proposals to make it an 'opt out' rather than an 'opt in' system. That is, your organs would be considered donated unless you specifiy that you do not want it to be so.
Everyone involved in the organ transplant business makes a profit on it, except the person who owned the organ in the first place, or his/her descendants. He/she is forbidden, by law, from making any money on the transaction, but those who remove them, those who tranport them, those who transplant them, and even he/she who receive them, all profit financially or physically from the transfer.
That just strikes me as odd.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 3, 2013, at 7:51 AM
"If you purchase a rebuilt engine and have it installed in your car... does the engine rebuilder become partially responsible for all other expenses associated with the car?"
Not really, but that's not really what's involved here.
Consider it like this: You and I together build a car. You decide you want to race it, against my objections. In agreement for allowing you to race it, you sign an agreement absolving me of any financial responsbility for the car from that point on. You then head to the track.
In the process of racing the car, you crash through the fence and kill a group of spectators. Are those spectators obligated by the agreement you signed with me absolving me of financial responsibility, or will they try to sue me as well as you to recover their damages?
Now, under terms of the agreement, I would have the legal authority to seek to recoup from you any damages I pay to them. That is to say, you agreed that I would not be held liable, and the onus would be on you to uphold that agreement. You have, in essence, said that upon your signature you would insure me against financial losses resulting from our partnership in the building of the car.
In the same way, the sperm donor would have the legal authority to seek to recoup any support payments he makes from the women with whom he had the agreement. However, given that they have sought the state's assistance in supporting the child, it is unlikely that they will have the finances to make good on their agreement.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 3, 2013, at 7:58 AM
Menu
http://home.myhughesnet.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CDA3I0ES81%40news.ap.org%3E&p...
"TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) -- 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 (bit.ly/132b7Ji) 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 **** thing I can do about it."
"Though his attorneys, Benoit Swinnen and Hannah Schroller, are charging him reduced rates, Marotta said he expects the legal fees to eventually be more than he can afford. He is predominantly a mechanic but said he is currently working in a different field. He and his wife, Kimberly, have no biological children but care for foster children.
________
A curious case. The answer, of course, is to not be flippant with your sperm.
On the one hand, society does not owe it to the child or her parents to provide her with services free of charge if there is a parent capable of covering the costs.
On another hand, the father entered into the agreement fully expecting that he would be absolved of all costs. In essence, he beleived he was selling his sperm 'as is, where is'.
On yet another hand, the women assumed the responsibilities for the costs of raising the children to whom they gave birth. They have eight children between them (the article does not state if they are all born to one of the women, or if each of them gave birth to some of them).
That the women have 'split' does not absolve them of the responsibility they assumed. Why they have split after having eight children together I do not know. I find it curious that the split seems to be coincident with the one's contracting of a 'serious illness'. Did they split so that she would qualify for benefits?
Nor does the sperm donor's desire to bear no responsibility for the product of his transaction entitle him to burden society with that cost. He was apparently well aware that it was the intent of the women to produce a child with his sperm. His agreement was that they would not hold him financially responsible, however, they have no authority to sign such an agreement for the state, and the state is in no way obligated to honour the terms of an agreement they did not sign. By signing the agreement, the women accepted the costs of raising the child. In the process of abrogating that responsibility, they passed those costs on to those where not a party to the agreement to deny the donor's financial responsibility.
At least, that is how I see it.
Replies (14)