US sperm donor who helped lesbian couple fights child support bid

US sperm donor who helped lesbian couple fights child support bid

www.news.com.au

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, told The Topeka Capital-Journal he's "a little scared about where this is going to go, primarily for financial reasons".

When he donated sperm to Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner in 2009, Mr Marotta relinquished all parental rights, including financial responsibility.



Read more: www.news.com.au...

(visit the link for the full news article)

Another example of people doing the right thing getting screwed by the system. The guy goes out of his way to assist a lesbian couple only to be told 3 years later that he will be up for child support. What is wrong with these people who make the rules. it is going to cost this guy a fortune to fight this in court and the only people who are going to benefit are the lawyers.

Hopefully though it might just change the laws.



www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

honestly, he shoulda went to a fertilization clinic and did the donation there, then he wouldnt be obligated to pay support, made it all legal

The state contends the agreement between Mr Marotta and the women is not valid because Kansas law requires a doctor to perform artificial insemination.

reply to post by magma


Seems to me that he should be pissed off at the woman. She seems to be the one pushing the child support issue.

Originally posted by magma


Another example of people doing the right thing getting screwed by the system. The guy goes out of his way to assist a lesbian couple only to be told 3 years later that he will be up for child support. What is wrong with these people who make the rules. it is going to cost this guy a fortune to fight this in court and the only people who are going to benefit are the lawyers.

Hopefully though it might just change the laws.



www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

He didn't do the right thing.

He was just looking for some easy sex.

So it is not possible to have an arrangement with someone?

If he has done the wrong thing and I have posted this in error, mods delete.

reply to post by magma

The state contends the agreement between Mr Marotta and the women is not valid because Kansas law requires a doctor to perform artificial insemination Read more: www.news.com.au...

This makes no sense at all. An agreement is an agreement. Doctors don't have to be there for agreements, it has nothing to do with the medical field and everything to do with legal.

If I said, "if you cut off your little finger, I will give you my car" and you did, then rushed them to the hospital, does that mean I wouldn't have to give up my car?

reply to post by FlySolo


He inseminated her by having sex with her.

Thus it's not really artificial. He would have probably needed a lawyer to draw up the contract relinquishing responsibility in this case.

reply to post by Miraj


Did it say he had sex with her? There are syringes to do that.

Seeing that not everyone knows the law, I'm assuming the woman is taking advantage of the situation. There was a thread posted months ago about this and supposedly the two women were together and wanted a child and took the easy way out by finding a donor themselves. Then the women split, hence can't take care of the child on their own so they are looking for compensation.

It's a pussy state, almost always in favor for the woman. The man didn't know better, neither did he woman, they chose a shortcut which included paying a lot of money (understandable) and the woman is taking advantage of the situation.

SMDH.

eta: why pay money when you can find a suitable donor offering it for free? To me, That's what these women did.

Sounds like it was not done properly by the books...as usual in affairs like this any donor should ensure they have the full legal weight behind them so they are safe and not just turn up with a jar and a turkey baster with little paperwork

reply to post by FlySolo


The guy didn't have sex with the women they used another method of insemination use your imagination. The man was straight and married when he agreed to donate his seed. He only donated his seed he didn't have sex. They had a written agreement. The government over stepped their agreement between the people. I have an even more messed up story that pertains to me. And I might share it because it would raise a bunch of eye brows about how Messed up this country is.

The women are on the side of the donor not the state. The state is taking action after they demanded she reveal the identy of the donor. she got state assistance and the state went looking for money. I am in a even more messed up situation that would blow minds on here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and another example in Britain...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by magma
So it is not possible to have an arrangement with someone?

If he has done the wrong thing and I have posted this in error, mods delete.

They had no legal binding agreement from what I could see that exempted him from any such action. As well as they never verified the requrements at the state level for sperm donation and insemination.

It's really crooked for the state to do this though. Dirty, dirty dirty..

~Tenth

reply to post by FlySolo


Not necessarily.

But the article is lacking in details. Which his why Im going to say, he probably had sex with the mother.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Who says it should be the government who controls who and how kids are made?

he didnt cover his six, he should have had the donation made legal, he didnt so now hes obligated, he can tell the courts one thing, they can say another, it boils down to A HE SAID, SHE SAID

Originally posted by JarheadFidelis
reply to post by magma

 

Seems to me that he should be pissed off at the woman. She seems to be the one pushing the child support issue.

did you even read the article? i don't see where the woman is the one pushing for this.

When Ms Bauer and Ms Schreiner filed for state assistance this year, the state demanded the donor's name so it could collect child support for the now three-year-old girl. Read more: www.news.com.au...

the STATE in other words the GOVERNMENT, is the one that started this and is the one pursuing this. the only thing the woman seems to have done was to file for assistance, it is the state that is looking for child support not her. yet again the government sticking it's nose into the private affairs of citizens. sadly it would have been better if she had LIED and said she had no clue who the father was. really sad state of affairs when a lie would have perhaps been the RIGHT thing to do.

this type of thing is even worse when you consider what else might have happened. it could have been an abused lady on the run from her husband, in which case the demand for child support would give him a good place to start looking for her. quite possibly to kill her and/or kill or kidnap the child.

so even trying to help someone who can not conceive a child and yet may for reasons like only wanting things done naturally and thus artificial insemination is out, can put you in a jam years later even when signing away any involvement in that child's life. wonder what would happen in a case of a woman having a child for someone who could not? would the government ALSO go after HER for child support being the "birth mother". what does this mean for someone who has put a child up for adoption can they also be hit up for child support?

i guess one lesson we can learn from this, is that yet again it proves in today's society you better NOT HELP anyone or you might get screwed in the end. such a nice society we live in isn't it.

reply to post by marbles87


I'm not agreeing with the situation, I'm just stating that they had a responsibility for due diligence and they failed.

If you aren't informed and do not make the effort to cover all your bases ( as a lawyer would have probably done) than you sort of deserve what you get when it comes to court.

Had they done things properly, this would not be happening. I don't think the guy should have to pay a damn dime personally, but the State will collect where the State can collect.

It's no more simple than that.

~Tenth

Originally posted by HomerinNC
he didnt cover his six, he should have had the donation made legal, he didnt so now hes obligated, he can tell the courts one thing, they can say another, it boils down to A HE SAID, SHE SAID

If it came down to "he said she said", isn't that a little bit sexist to automatically reward it to the woman?