Kansas judge rules Craigslist sperm donor isn’t on hook for child support for lesbian moms

You want to be same-sex parents? Then suck it up and deal with the financial responsibilities that come along with that “right.”


Via NY Post: A Topeka (Kansas) man who answered a Craigslist ad to donate sperm so two women could have a baby together is not legally the child’s father and isn’t required to provide financial support, a Kansas judge has ruled.

The state Department for Children and Families had not decided as of Tuesday whether it would appeal last week’s ruling by Shawnee County District Judge Mary Mattivi. The department sought to force William Marotta to pay child support for the girl born in December 2009.

Mattivi last year required Marotta to submit a DNA sample to confirm that he was the girl’s biological father and declared he was not “a mere donor of sperm.” But the judge’s Nov. 22 ruling concluded that the birth mother’s former partner should be considered the child’s second parent rather than Marotta, in part because he has had minimal contact with the girl.

The department filed a petition in 2012 to have Marotta declared the child’s legal father and require him to pay child support after the women, birth mother Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauer, separated and Schreiner received assistance from the state. The department initially sought to reclaim about almost $6,100 in expenses associated with the child’s birth.

The case illustrated how older laws on assisted reproduction in Kansas and others have not been updated. Charles Baylor, Marotta’s attorney, said the Kansas agency’s position was “radical” and discriminated 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,” Baylor said.

The agency argued that Marotta was legally on the hook for child support — even though he never intended to act as the child’s father — because the two women did not use a physician. In her ruling, Mattivi said Bauer is unable to work and is receiving Social Security disability benefits.

A 1994 Kansas law says a man who provides donated sperm to a doctor for an insemination is not the child’s parent, absent a written agreement saying otherwise.

Marotta and the two women signed a contract in which they agreed to pay him $50 for every semen donation. Legal documents say Schreiner was impregnated with a syringe in early 2009.

Secretary Phyllis Gilmore said the department is disappointed with Mattivi’s ruling, adding in a statement that “the law pertaining to sperm donors is clear and was ignored in this ruling.”

Courtney Joslin, a University of California, Davis, law professor, said a commission on uniform state laws recommended in 2000 and 2002 that states eliminate a requirement that physicians be involved in assisted reproduction to protect sperm donors. Eleven states adopted its recommendations, and California independently repealed the requirement as of this year, she said. Nine states and the District of Columbia have laws that treat an unmarried partner as a legal parent when there is assisted reproduction, Joslin said.

Judge Mary Mattivi

Judge Mary Mattivi

Mattivi’s latest ruling noted that Schreiner and Bauer are parenting the girl together and that Kansas courts have long held that the child’s best interest is the key issue. The judge said Bauer’s presumption of parenthood is “superior” to Marotta’s.

A friend of Marotta’s started a GoFundMe page to raise money for his legal expenses. As of Tuesday, the effort had raised about $2,300.


18 responses to “Kansas judge rules Craigslist sperm donor isn’t on hook for child support for lesbian moms

  1. sounds like common sense

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I hope Wm Marotta and other men learn a lesson from this:

    Don’t donate your sperm to lesbians. Every study we have shows that babies do better in a stable, heterosexual-parents home.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Studies also show that homosexuals have extremely common instances of mental illness (not including the homosexuality). I would bet money that Angela Bauer’s ‘inability to work’, which qualified her for Social Security disability, is purely based on mental issues like depression, anxiety, etc.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dr Eowyn . . . You have “nailed it.” A $50.00 per “donation” is hardly worth the problems you may incur when you willingly provide them (the lesbians) with the means to bring a child into the world that WILL NOT by all statistical and clinical studies be raised in a healthy environment. Why would any man deliberately sentence another human being to this kind of agony. In this case, I am glad the judge ruled in his favor . . . but that does not negate the fact that “he has a screw loose” by virtue of entering into this kind of arrangement!

      I would have an absolute fit if one of my brothers, or nephews were to enter into this kind of ethically compromised kind of “sales arrangement.” This is not right from the get-go! I find that sentencing an innocent to a life of questionable circumstances to be but a few steps above abortion.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. My how these homosexuals are selfish and narcissistic people. They want a child, regardless of the fact that biology dictates that 2 people of the same sex cannot procreate. So bent on getting their own way they resort to artificial means. The child’s best interests are never taken into account. Now we hear the ‘couple’ has split. I pity the child that will be raised by these deluded and immature individuals. I also applaud the judge’s decision in this case, not to lay undue financial responsibility on the donor male.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. HAHAHA, you told two lesbians to SUCK IT UP. HAHAHAHAHA


  5. So two women get together and decide they want a baby together. They offer a man $50 for sperm. One gets pregnant. They are happy UNTIL one decides to skip out on their child. So now the other wants the sperm donor’s feet held to the fire because her other partner won’t help support “THEIR” child. The other woman needs to pay child support. The Judge, a woman herself, is correct. If the child had been adopted you could NOT go back and make the natural parents help support that child. I also bet if the second woman had stayed in the picture the man would have been denied any contact with the child by BOTH women. The two women brought that baby into this world the both owe it finical support!!!!!!!! You can also bet IF the man winds up being forced by the state to help support the baby that that will be the END of sperm donors!


  6. Pingback: Kansas judge rules Craigslist sperm donor isn’t on hook for child support for lesbian moms — Fellowship of the Minds | kommonsentsjane

  7. Interesting use of words; sperm ‘donation’.
    This man gives his very life-giving essence not as a ‘donation’ but in return for $50.
    Even if he’d agreed to no material exchange, meaning, as a true ‘donation’, a new human being was the hoped for result by these 2 women.
    How very cheap, sterile and sad are these people.
    The only victim, naturally, is the child.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Stlonginus . . . You have very eloquently stated what should be obvious to everyone . . . . . “How very cheap, sterile and sad are these people. The only victim, naturally, is the child.” Amongst the three of the adults, they are all lacking in intelligence!

      Liked by 2 people

  8. yes, indeed, the only victims in these cases are the children.
    when adults put their selfish interests above society’s best interests (traditional interests which maintains a healthy and functioning society), it will be the children who suffer, and ultimately, society itself.
    love the snow!

    Liked by 1 person

  9. This very scenario also shows only too well the ways in which various State Child Services Agencies will endeavor to collect monies of anyone. We had an incident in our family; my brother David was divorced, he had three daughters with his ex-wife. Since he had a very good job with Boeing, the State of Oregon (child support had to be paid to the State rather than directly to an ex-spouse) had no problem getting monies from him.. My ex-sister-in-law went on to marry another man and she had a son with him. Low and behold, the State of Oregon sent David a letter stating that they wanted him to start paying child support for the son that was born to his ex-wife and at that point her second ex-husband. (Evidently, the actual father of this boy was not paying child support, so they wanted an easy mark.) Frankly, I was flabbergasted the State could demand monies from one man for the child which was the biological issue of another man.

    David sent the State of Oregon a letter that stated — he would be happy to comply, as long as he was allowed to adopt this boy and take him as a tax deduction. That was the last he heard from the State of Oregon. This shows the devious means state officials will go to in order to collect monies! Somehow, if they feel there is anyone in the picture who might have some money that they can get their hands on–they are all for it no matter how unethical.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Years age here in Georgia the only way a woman could get state money for a child was to tell the state who the father was. That way the state could go after the father to recoup some of that money. Now the women, to protect their boyfriends, just say, ” I don’t know who the daddy is, I have slept with so many different men!” Personally I say no name,,,, NO money. The child??? Put it into the state’s care until a name comes to mind! We have gotten to free with giving other peoples money to baby factories!!!!

      Liked by 1 person

      • David . . . I certainly agree with you, these “mothers” who willingly allow themselves to be impregnated, but have no way of taking care of the children themselves are a horrible millstone around the necks of other members of our society. Long about the second time you come up pregnant, without your own personal means to support yourself and your child . . . there should be some snip-snip going on. There should be a choice: either you agree to be sterilized, or you agree that you are not entitled to ANY FUNDS from other tax payers to support you. The unfortunate children born to these baby factories, in a majority of cases, are born into horrible circumstances–the majority of which are never able to climb out of. These are the same children who end up in juvy; end up as prostitutes because they are an easy mark of predators; end up in prison. They end up with lives that are unmanageable due to the carelessness of both of the people who gave them life. The “Great Society” of the 60’s which gave Welfare to walking/talking baby factories really isn’t ALL THAT GREAT . . . not for the people being “taken care of,” and not for the “people whose earnings are confiscated” to pay for the benefits of others. It is strictly a loosing proposition.

        Liked by 2 people

  10. Papa O’bama should be the one paying child support, hahaha!

    Liked by 1 person

  11. State of Kansas DCF should face sanctions for wasting the court’s time and taxpayer money. Selling any bodily fluid should be illegal. I can’t even fathom the idiocy of all the people involved in this travesty. Just hope the child has maternal grandparents who can exert some positive influence.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s