He Gave At Office - Not Liable For Baby

[Spare_change]

Rachel Stoltzfoos on November 30, 2016

A Kansas county judge has ruled a man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple is not the resulting child’s father and does not have to pay child support.

The Topeka man donated his sperm to Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauer in response to a Craigslist ad, for the price of $50 per semen donation. Schreiner had his baby girl in December, 2009, but later split up with her partner. Now she’s trying to force the William Marotta to supplement the assistance she’s getting from the state to raise the girl.

Schreiner and Bauer do not support the state’s demands, and are supporting the donor’s legal fight. A friend of the couple and Marotta has set up a GoFundMe page to help with Marotta’s legal costs, with a goal of $10,000.

The state Department for Children and Families initially sought $6,100 in birthing expenses on her behalf in the court case. But Shawnee County District Judge Mary Mattivi ruled last week Marotta is not on the hook for the money, and that Bauer should be considered the child’s second parent.

Marotta’s lawyer argued that the demand for child support is a “radical” position and discriminates against same-sex couples. “If the presumptive parent, in this case the non-biological mother, had been a man, they never would have gone after the sperm donor,” the lawyer told The Associated Press.

Kansas law stipulates a man who donated sperm is not the resulting child’s parent, unless he signs a written agreement stating otherwise. The Kansas agency may choose to appeal the judge’s ruling, on the grounds of a technicality regarding the use of a physician in the pregnancy.

 

[emilynghiem]

Rachel Stoltzfoos on November 30, 2016

A Kansas county judge has ruled a man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple is not the resulting child’s father and does not have to pay child support.

The Topeka man donated his sperm to Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauer in response to a Craigslist ad, for the price of $50 per semen donation. Schreiner had his baby girl in December, 2009, but later split up with her partner. Now she’s trying to force the William Marotta to supplement the assistance she’s getting from the state to raise the girl.

Schreiner and Bauer do not support the state’s demands, and are supporting the donor’s legal fight. A friend of the couple and Marotta has set up a GoFundMe page to help with Marotta’s legal costs, with a goal of $10,000.

The state Department for Children and Families initially sought $6,100 in birthing expenses on her behalf in the court case. But Shawnee County District Judge Mary Mattivi ruled last week Marotta is not on the hook for the money, and that Bauer should be considered the child’s second parent.

Marotta’s lawyer argued that the demand for child support is a “radical” position and discriminates against same-sex couples. “If the presumptive parent, in this case the non-biological mother, had been a man, they never would have gone after the sperm donor,” the lawyer told The Associated Press.

Kansas law stipulates a man who donated sperm is not the resulting child’s parent, unless he signs a written agreement stating otherwise. The Kansas agency may choose to appeal the judge’s ruling, on the grounds of a technicality regarding the use of a physician in the pregnancy.

So Spare_change let me get this straight:
the couple wants equal rights to raise children,
but when held to legal and financial responsibilities,
they want to reneg?

I guess that's equal compared to how other parents may want to reneg
and make someone else pay!

With equal rights come equal responsibilities.

btw I could imagine a scenario where the sperm donor could be held liable:
what if he MISREPRESENTED his health or genetically carried diseases that he KNEW about,
and ended up passing a genetic disease to the child that cost medical expenses.
perhaps in that case, I could see the parents suing the original donor for
misrepresentation and fraud, and costs/damages associated with that fraud.

 

[konradv]

let me get this straight: the couple wants equal rights to raise children, but when held to legal and financial responsibilities, they want to reneg?

The article is confusing. In one sentence it says one of the partners is involved in the suit.

Schreiner had his baby girl in December, 2009, but later split up with her partner. Now she’s trying to force the William Marotta to supplement the assistance she’s getting from the state to raise the girl.

Then in the next sentence it says the couple supports the donor against the state's demand that he kick in for the child's support.

Schreiner and Bauer do not support the state’s demands, and are supporting the donor’s legal fight.



The article, however, says nothing about anyone renegging. Circumstances that lead people to apply for assistance don't necessarily mean that someone is shirking their responsibilities.

 

[Grandma]

emilynghiem - No, the STATE wants to sue the donor. The women do not.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

One of the hard biological facts that modern liberalism tries desperately to deny is that it takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to create a child. Further, a child needs a father and a mother, and is entitled to the proper care, support, and attention of both.

Lacking another man, who is willing to adopt the child and take on the role of that child's father, the man who provided the sperm is that child's father. Perhaps he thought that he signed away his responsibility for the child, but the child never had the chance to agree to give up her right to her father's support.

There can be no justification for punishing the child for the immoral and irresponsible behavior of the adults who were responsible for creating her.

 

[emilynghiem]

let me get this straight: the couple wants equal rights to raise children, but when held to legal and financial responsibilities, they want to reneg?

The article is confusing. In one sentence it says one of the partners is involved in the suit.

Schreiner had his baby girl in December, 2009, but later split up with her partner. Now she’s trying to force the William Marotta to supplement the assistance she’s getting from the state to raise the girl.

Then in the next sentence it says the couple supports the donor against the state's demand that he kick in for the child's support.

Schreiner and Bauer do not support the state’s demands, and are supporting the donor’s legal fight.



The article, however, says nothing about anyone renegging. Circumstances that lead people to apply for assistance don't necessarily mean that someone is shirking their responsibilities.

Dear konradv
From the other post by Grandma, it seems this statement is being contested from the OP:

"The Topeka man donated his sperm to Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauer in response to a Craigslist ad, for the price of $50 per semen donation. Schreiner had his baby girl in December, 2009, but later split up with her partner.
Now she’s trying to force the William Marotta to supplement the assistance she’s getting from the state to raise the girl."

If, instead, it is the opposite, that the parents are defending the donor,
then this statement is NOT correct as given in the OP!!!

As for "reneging" if she is trying to "FORCE someone else to pay"
that's what I meant -- trying to avoid the FULL cost of the responsibility by getting it out of someone
else and making THAT person responsible for the part they couldn't afford to pay when they had signed up for this.

To me, that is still reneging on the commitment to accept FULL
responsibility of ALL expenses as the parents, had that statement been accurate.

I thought that sounded bizarre.

BTW I am NOT talking about cases of hardship where people are honestly trying to cover costs.
That's different, and the way this case was DESCRIBED in the OP it didn't sound anything like that.

 

[emilynghiem]

One of the hard biological facts that modern liberalism tries desperately to deny is that it takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to create a child. Further, a child needs a father and a mother, and is entitled to the proper care, support, and attention of both.

Lacking another man, who is willing to adopt the child and take on the role of that child's father, the man who provided the sperm is that child's father. Perhaps he thought that he signed away his responsibility for the child, but the child never had the chance to agree to give up her right to her father's support.

There can be no justification for punishing the child for the immoral and irresponsible behavior of the adults who were responsible for creating her.

Yes and no Bob Blaylock
I understand having the physical inheritance from the father,
so yes, whatever medical history the father has will affect the child.

However, I have personally seen cases of adoption
where the child really did NOT feel any special or spiritual connection to the birth mother or parents.
I met a woman who said that she saw her biological mother as just another person and did not feel any bond.

That happens, too!

I think you are right that it COULD be in such cases of sperm donation, the connection to the father is still there.
I think it depends spiritually on each person.

Since we don't know what connection the child will have, or will or will not develop, with others,
that is why I think "open adoption" is a better approach if it is done correctly with everyone agreeing to it.
However, even with open adoptions, I've heard enough bad stories about those going wrong,
and people not sticking to commitments they made.
so it is VERY important to match people up who are on the same page to begin with.

I don't think that is a "random" process, but takes the right chemistry and connection to make it work.

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd puttin' an ad...

... inna local gay/lesbo newspaper.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I understand having the physical inheritance from the father,
so yes, whatever medical history the father has will affect the child.

However, I have personally seen cases of adoption
where the child really did NOT feel any special or spiritual connection to the birth mother or parents.
I met a woman who said that she saw her biological mother as just another person and did not feel any bond.

That happens, too!

I think you are right that it COULD be in such cases of sperm donation, the connection to the father is still there.
I think it depends spiritually on each person.

Since we don't know what connection the child will have, or will or will not develop, with others,
that is why I think "open adoption" is a better approach if it is done correctly with everyone agreeing to it.
However, even with open adoptions, I've heard enough bad stories about those going wrong,
and people not sticking to commitments they made.
so it is VERY important to match people up who are on the same page to begin with.

I don't think that is a "random" process, but takes the right chemistry and connection to make it work.

That's an awful lot of words, to say nothing at all.

But at the root of the issue is that we have three immoral, irresponsible adults, who have brought a child into the world for purely selfish reasons, arguing about their own interests, with no regard at all for the rights and interests of that child.

That child is entitled to a mother and a father, to the full attention and support of both; and here, we have these three degenerates conspiring to deprive her of her father.