Thursday, January 03, 2013
State of Kansas Seeks Child Support from Sperm Donor
Several years ago, William Marotta donated sperm to a lesbian
couple trying to have a child. At the time, he entered into a written agreement
with the couple that he would not be considered the father of the child nor
would he be required to pay child support.
Now, the state of Kansas is trying to tell him that his agreement is no longer
enforceable.
The couple recently separated, causing the birth mother to
face financial hardships and apply for welfare. As a result, the state of Kansas
filed a petition last October seeking to have Marotta declared the 3-year-old
child’s father and make him financially responsible for her. The state of
Kansas is looking to recover $6,000 in medical expenses associated with the
child’s birth as well as ongoing child support, in spite of the fact that he
has not been a part of her life since she was born, as was dictated by his
agreement with the couple.
Marotta has a court hearing January 8th where he
will petition to have the claim dismissed. Unfortunately, state law is not on
his side. According to Kansas law, the sperm must be donated through a licensed
doctor in order for the biological father to be relieved of future financial
obligations. In this particular case, Marotta did not donate through a clinic
or a doctor; he found the couple on Craigslist.
Normally, the contract between the sperm donor and the
couple would be binding, and he would not be liable to pay child support, nor
would he be granted any parental rights. But the mother applied to the state
for welfare assistance to support the child and before any state will pay out support
from public tax money, they will seek to find support from a private party. In
this case, it is the sperm donor. The law says the contract will be upheld
until the state is asked to come in and pay. At that point, the contract is no
longer honored.
While it is uncertain how the court will rule on this
matter, it is clear that this case will have a serious impact that goes well
beyond this particular couple and sperm donor. It will serve to set a public
policy precedent that will most likely impact all future sperm donors who may
want to choose to help a couple (or single individual) who wants to have a
child but cannot.
If the state wants to protect and encourage sperm donations
in the future, it will do the right thing and honor the contract between
Marotta and this couple and protect him from future child support obligations.
However, just because a decision is good public policy and the ethical choice
does not necessarily mean it will be the ultimate outcome.
posted by Andrew @ 4:26 PM
0 comments
