Judge rules Kan. sperm donor owes child support


#1

stltoday.com/news/national/judge-rules-kan-sperm-donor-owes-child-support/article_5a0f5e79-4996-5737-91a0-fe31bf5378c4.html

A man who provided sperm to a lesbian couple in response to an online ad is the father of a child born to one of the women and must pay child support, a Kansas judge ruled Wednesday.

Topeka resident William Marotta had argued that he had waived his parental rights and didn’t intend to be a father. Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi rejected that claim, saying the parties didn’t involve a licensed physician in the artificial insemination process and thus Marotta didn’t qualify as a sperm donor, The Topeka Capital-Journal (bit.ly/LHwLyW) reported.

I particularly like the paragraph about how the state is looking to collect $6,000 public assistance money, and the mother of the child filed a petition for child support. Umm, you paid for artificial insemination and then went on public assistance, and then filed for child support from the sperm donor? Something seems very wrong about this fact pattern. It is interesting to note that when you apply for assistance, you must report all income of those in the household, even of those who are not related to you…


#2

A strange set of facts indeed. Pay for a sperm donor, then apply for public assistance after the child is born.

On the other hand, he says he never intended to be a father? Hmm, what did he think his ‘donation’ was being used for? The child does have a father.

The whole process of producing children through artificial means is morally bankrupt.


#3

Yes, the entire situation demonstrates the illegitimacy of every person involved in the process excluding the poor child!

The lesbian couple illustrates how gay adoption so selfishly denies a child a mother AND a father! In this case they didnt even adopt! They created a child solely to satisfy their own adult needs instead of being concerned completely about the welfare and rights of a child.

The “donor” illustrates the mans complete disregard for his responsibility for the gift of sexuality and also his own interests over that of a child.

What utter immaturity , selfishness and complete lack of appreciation for the gift and power of human sexuality exhibited by all those who attempt to create family out of the context of a married man and woman. Married men an women make a mess of things easily enough already. Now with the science of IVF and other techniques, and gay " marriage" we simply compound the problems of broken families! What chaos and destruction we wreak on society when with our selfish needs and disdain for the will of God.


#4

The situation is even stranger than that. They applied for public assistance when the child was conceived, possibly even before conception took place.

According to the court ruling, the artificial insemination occurred during a three day period in April 2009, although the exact dates are not identified. On April 10, 2009 the couple first applied for public benefits for their unborn child. The child was born in December of the same year.
cjonline.com/sites/default/files/marottaRuling.pdf


#5

How did our community of men and women mess up this bad, squandering God’s ordered design and gift of free will?

All these (IVF, sperm / egg donations, womb-for-rent) are misapplications of science and technology. When we don’t care for ethics and disassociate morality from such procedures, we open Pandora’s box of evil and unintended ills. The Church counseled against these procedures, which take away from human dignity and the good of natural family building.

May God be merciful on our day of judgment!
,


#6

Well, I guess that’d be one way to cut down on these kinds of donations!


#7

Lesson learned!


#8

For this man and woman, I guess so… Unfortunately, the sort of person who would answer a Craigslist ad to donate sperm, or the person who would place such an ad, is probably not big on following the news. So we will probably hear about more such cases. :frowning:


#9

This is just wrong. Totally wrong. Yet another reason to avoid this practice. This is not what God intended.


#10

This is one of the major reasons I find gay “marriage” such a disturbing idea. All of these techniques, artificial insemination, embryo transfer, surrogate mothers are the EXACT SAME THINGS I DID WHEN BREEDING ANIMALS. Even more disgusting was advertising for a “stud” on Craig’s List. Do you want to tell your daugher you picked daddy out of a free advertising online list? It so cheapens the value of human life and so demeans the natural process of self giving love between husband and wife.

It’s shocking to see human beings turned into commodities to be bought. And those who claim gay “marriage” or gay partnerships are equivalent to male female relationships don’t seem to care that they are buying and selling human beings.

Disoredered is a nice way to put it.

Lisa


#11

I don’t think he intended to be a male parent.

That’s not at all restricted to gay couples.


#12

No, but law about paternity are strange. So if a woman who is married to a man, gets artificially inseminated, her spouse is the presumed father of any child born during the course of the marriage, unless he takes specific legal steps to deny paternity. But I am not sure the same can be said for a lesbian partner. (In the case specifically, KS does not recognize gay marriage). Since the partner cannot have paternity over the child in any sense, and no adoption was completed here. So this being able to file for child support should be a concern of anyone donating to unmarried women or gay couples specifically.


#13

Well if he didn’t intend to be a parent, why did he provide one half of the genetic material? That’s ridiculous. So the man didn’t know what the women intended to do with his sperm? I thought that was clear in the ad.

In the first place shame on him for helping to create a precious human being and then doing everything possible to avoid any contact or responsibility for the child. SHAME on any man or woman who abandons a child. Truly one of the most disgusting results of the disintegreation of the family. How do you think the child will feel when she learns her “daddy” answered an ad in Craig’s List, wanted nothing to do with HER, just wanted to spread his wild oats so to speak. It’s like animals breeding. YUCK!

While this kind of thing isn’t just for gays, it’s a NECESSITY if a gay/Lesbian couple wishes to have a child. No male/male or female/female pair can create a child together. As more and more gay/Lesbian couples demand a child “of their own” this sort of thing is increasing. There have been numerous news stories about well known gays breeding their own children through surrogates, including the horrible story of the men who then exploited the child in porn movies. Again divorcing the creation of a child from the normal pattern makes the child a commodity to be purchased.

Further the acceptance of single motherhood, including women who have themselves inseminated, has helped to create a legion of irresponsible males who figure it’s her problem…how has that fatherless home worked out for the most part?

And before you get your undies in a wad, I agree that heterosexuals have brought this on themselves by not protecting marriage. But that doesn’t excuse the egregious and irresponsbile behavior of ALL of these people…

Lisa


#14

So well said Lisa :thumbsup:


#15

The judge’s decision was based upon the lack of physician oversight. Because the threesome performed the insemination in an informal manner, as opposed to a medical insemination, the non-paternity contract which they signed was declared invalid.

It is important to note that detail. If the threesome had used a physician, the donor would not have been declared the father and would not have been held responsible for child support. Of course, the laws of other states may differ.

What the threesome did was irresponsible, but they should have consulted a lawyer first just to make sure it was legal.


#16

While you may be correct, legally speaking, you are missing the whole point of what is happening here.


#17

True but consulting a lawyer would not have addressed the real issue. How have we created the idea that human beings can be treated as commodities to be purchased on Craig’s List?

Irresponsible in not covering their behinds to avoid liability? No! Irresponsible in not considering the amazing power of creating a human being and treating this power with the kind of reverence and care it deserves.

Again this speaks to the beauty and validity of our Catholic faith where the first concern is the dignity of the human person. There is no dignity in buying sperm or eggs or surrogate wombs. There is no dignity in buying children for adults’ selfish desires. A pox on all of their houses:mad:
Lisa


#18

I guess I wasn’t clear. I apologize for that.

What they did was irresponsible, for the reasons you and others have expressed. In addition, what they did was not legal.

I was responding to a comment which claimed “being able to file for child support should be a concern of anyone donating to unmarried women or gay couples specifically.” I simply was pointing out that the man would not have been ordered to pay child support if the threesome had used a physician to conduct the artificial insemination. The judge’s ruling is not about artificial insemination itself, but about doing the insemination in an informal manner which was outside the law.

The decision in the Kansas case has limited application to other couples or threesomes. The ruling does not say that sperm donors, in general, can be held accountable for child support.


#19

Oh I didn’t mean to sound like I was arguing with you, I suspect we are of like mind. I just want to continue to focus on the child and other children who are conceived in such a disordered fashion. It augers toward abandonment, irresponsibility and most important the dehumanizing of the child.

I think the “out” of having a doctor involved in the procedure is ineffective in responsibility toward the child and I hope the Kansas legislature takes a look at this whole area.

Lisa


#20

Indeed!Another unintended consequence of this practice are all of the “snowflake babies”(extra embryos) that remain in a suspended state,until which time they are either used for the IVF process,or simply destroyed:(


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.