Tag Archives: child support

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.”
same-sex-parents
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.
DCG

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Crisis of Fatherhood in America: 41% of Births Illegitimate

The Cost to Taxpayers of Missing Fathers

 by Phyllis Schlafly

June 17, 2011

With Father’s Day tomorrow, we should ponder the sad plight of the 20 million American children who are growing up without their fathers in the home. In 1993 Charles Murray identifiedillegitimacy as the single most important social problem of our time . . . because it drives everything else.”

Murray was whistling in the wind. Last year, the U.S. illegitimacy rate had grown to 41 percent, and among whites it was 29 percent.

Prior to Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, husbands and fathers provided for their families. The 1.7 million out-of-wedlock babies born last year and their unmarried moms now look to Big Brother as their financial provider.

The left is content to let this problem persist because 70 percent of unmarried women voted for Barack Obama for president. They vote for the party that offers the richer subsidies.

Means-tested welfare handouts cost federal taxpayers $700 billion last year (not counting programs into which people pay, such as Social Security and Medicare). Spending by the states raises the annual total to nearly $900 billion, more than we are spending on national defense, and most of these programs subsidize non-marriage.

The 77 means-tested programs include Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), food stamps, housing subsidies, Medicaid, daycare, WIC, EITC (which can be as much as $5,657 a year to low-income families), School Lunch, School Breakfast, Summer Food, SSI, Headstart, and S-CHIP. The Heritage Foundation estimates that these benefits amount to $16,800 per person in poverty.

Ronald Reagan’s advice is still on target. If we subsidize something, we’ll get more of it; if we tax it, we’ll get less.

The financial subsidies that encourage non-marriage are the biggest reason why federal spending is out of control. There is no way to make significant cuts in the federal deficit unless we address the marriage-absence problem.

Poverty is massively greater for children living with a single, divorced, or cohabiting parent than with parents who are married to each other. The poverty rate for single parents with children is 37 percent, but only 6 percent for married couples with children.

Marriage breakdown is a double-edged sword. At the same time that it forces government to become the financial provider for millions of children and their caregivers, it also reduces the government’s tax receipts to pay for the handouts.

Income tax day now divides us into two almost equal classes: those who pay for government services and freeloaders. In 2009, 47 percent paid no federal income taxes, and the bottom 40 percent receive cash or benefits financed by the 53 percent who do pay income taxes.

Among other unfortunate effects, the trends toward non-marriage and toward same-sex marriage are a direct attack on fathers. The bond between a child and his mother is an obvious fact of nature, but marriage is the relationship that establishes the link between a child and his father.

There are many causes for the dramatic reduction in marriage, starting with unilateral divorce, which spread across the United States in the 1960s and ’70s, putting government on the side of marriage breakup. Then came the legalizing of abortion, diminishing the custom of shotgun marriages, which in earlier years was often the response to surprise pregnancies.

The feminist notion that women should be independent of men, followed by affirmative-action/female quotas in employment, tended to carry out the goal stated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the concept of husband-breadwinner and wife-homemaker “must be eliminated.” These feminist ideas and practices demean marriage by discriminating against men and also against fulltime homemakers.

Since the federal government created the child-support bureaucracy, the majority of divorces have been initiated by women. They confidently expect that pro-feminist family courts will award them a steady income for which they will never be held accountable.

The more child support that divorced fathers are ordered to pay, the more federal funds flow through the hands of the states, which compete for federal bonuses given to states that collect the most child support. It is profitable to state bureaucrats to make sure that fathers are permitted to see their own children only a few days per month so support payments can be set at the highest possible level.

Women have discovered they can use a request for an Order of Protection against their husband as “the gamesmanship of divorce” (in the words of the Illinois Bar Journal) in order to get sole child custody plus generous so-called child support. It’s easy to get such Orders without any evidence of abuse or even a threat, without notice to the husband, and with no danger of prosecution for perjury.

Federal and state laws and subsidies that undermine marriage are the biggest fiscal as well as cultural issue of our times.

+++

H/t my friend Bob W.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0