.

Should Sperm Donors Be Held Financially Responsible?

Three years after a Kansas man donated his sperm, the state wants him to pay child support.


A mechanic who answered a Craigslist ad to donate his sperm to a lesbian couple, is now being pursued by the State of Kansas for child support, reports the Kansas City Star.

In 2009, Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner entered into an agreement with the donor, William Marotta to provide his sperm.  They signed a contract that outlined he would be free from any financial responsibility as well as parental privileges, according to the newspaper.  The legal contract stated Marotta was not responsible “for any child support payments demanded of him by any other person or entity, public or private, including any district attorney’s office or other state or county agency, regardless of the circumstances or said demand.”

Although the women offered $50 per donation, Marotta and his wife met with the women and agreed to the contract without accepting the money, reports ABC news.

Now three years later, the mother fell into financial hardship and was told by the Kansas Department of Children and Families that the name of the father was required in order to obtain assistance, ABC reports.

The State of Kansas argues their contract is not valid because the artificial insemination was not performed by a licensed physician; Marotta is therefore responsible for child support.

Marotta's lawyer argues that if the law only protects donors inseminated by a licensed physican, any woman could have a donation shipped and inseminate herself in order to pursue the donor for money.

What do you think?  Should any sperm donor be held responsible for child support?

Grinwhicket January 03, 2013 at 06:19 PM
This is ludicrous: she bought sperm with the Intention of having a baby, NOT a father. I know the state coffers are taking heavier than ever hits all over, but you shouldn't be able to go after a man who thought he was signing a legally binding agreement and doing "a good deed", as he accepted no pay. The State in this case has a moral obligation to protect the innocent (The Donor) from persecution, based on the intent of the original legal agreement, rather than to stand on the "letter of the law" simply to avoid giving aid to another resident. It is this kind of thing that is demoralizing Americans, and discouraging to those who wish to help other people. No wonder our country ranks as one of the most medically Depressed Country globally!

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something