Be very careful in donating sperm

[Robert A Whit]

http://news.yahoo.com/child-support-claim-rankles-sperm-donor-lesbian-couple-014725388.html
<o></o>
KANSAS CITY, Kansas (Reuters) - A Kansas man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple so they could have a child said on Wednesday he is shocked the state is now trying to make him pay child support.
William Marotta, 46, donated sperm to Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauer under a written agreement that he would not be considered the father of the child nor liable for child support. A daughter, now 3, was born to Schreiner.
But in October, the state of Kansas filed a petition seeking to have Marotta declared the father of the child and financially responsible for her after the couple encountered money difficulties.
Marotta will ask the court in a hearing January 8 to dismiss the claim, which centers on a state law that the sperm must be donated through a licensed physician in order for the father to be free of any later financial obligations. Marotta gave a container of semen to the couple, who found him on Craigslist, instead of donating through a doctor or clinic.
The case is seen as having repercussions for other sperm donors. Sperm banks routinely provide sperm to people who want to conceive a child on the understanding that the donors are not responsible for the children.
Kansas is seeking child support from Marotta, including about $6,000 in medical expenses related to the child's birth, according to its petition.
"This was totally unexpected," Marotta said in a phone interview. "The very first thing that went through my mind was that no good deed goes unpunished."
The case has attracted national attention. Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said Wednesday "it is unfortunate and unfair" that Kansas is seeking money from a sperm donor.
"It certainly might have a negative effect on other men's willingness to help couples who need a donor, which would be harmful to everyone," Minter said.
"I also think it undermines everyone's respect for the law when you see it operate so arbitrarily."
Kansas officials are required under the law to determine the father of a child when someone seeks state benefits, said Angela de Rocha, spokeswoman for the Department for Children and Families. The couple was compelled to provide that information, which led to investigation of the sperm donation.
Marotta should be declared the father and subject to financial claims because he donated the sperm directly to the women and not through a physician, as required by Kansas law, the state's petition states.
Marotta said he's had virtually no contact with the child, but that he and Schreiner have remained cordial. He said she was pressured by the state to provide his name as the sperm donor.
"To me, ethics need to override rules," he said.
Lawyers for Marotta argue that he had no parental rights because of his agreement with the couple and cannot be held financially responsible.
They cite a 2007 case in which the Kansas Supreme Court ruled against a sperm donor seeking parental rights because he did not have any such agreement with the mother, lawyers for Marotta said.
"So now, we are flipping the argument around," Marotta attorney Ben Swinnen said Wednesday.
If the father had no legal parental rights in the 2007 case, Marotta should be declared to have no parental obligations in the current case, Swinnen said.
Marotta, a race car mechanic, responded to an ad on Craigslist from someone offering to pay $50 for sperm donations, but he made the donation for free. Marotta said he and his wife have no children of their own but have fostered a daughter. Marotta said he was simply trying to help a couple wanting a child.
(Editing by James B. Kelleher and Lisa Shumaker)
<SCRIPT>var t_art_body = new Date().getTime();</SCRIPT>

[avatar4321]

Should be careful with donating something like sperm anyway.

[cadet]

donated sperm to Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauerunder a written agreement that he would not be considered the father of the child nor liable for child support.

I thought when you signed something, it was as good as done. And is upheld in court. Kind of the same as giving your word, or swearing an oath, but legally binding.
The case should be written off soon. It won't go anywhere.

[Robert A Whit]

I thought when you signed something, it was as good as done. And is upheld in court. Kind of the same as giving your word, or swearing an oath, but legally binding.
The case should be written off soon. It won't go anywhere.

Contracts to be valid must obey the written law.

That is the basis for the legal problems in this case.

KS alleges that the parties broke the law. Ergo one can't contract to do an illegal act.

I don't know who will win. My heart is with the donor. But the State has plenty of lawyers and pays the judges.

A good case of an illegal contract would be you hire a person to rob the bank. They don't do it so you sue them in court. No court will allow such a contract to stand and will think the person doing the sueing is crazy.

[Thunderknuckles]

I thought when you signed something, it was as good as done. And is upheld in court. Kind of the same as giving your word, or swearing an oath, but legally binding.
The case should be written off soon. It won't go anywhere.

I don't think it will written off. We've seen previous cases where the child's well being trumps any contract. What I draw from this is that men should not, under any circumstances, donate sperm if they do not wish to be regarded as the legal father because you will be on the hook for any human being that results should all else fail.

[avatar4321]

I thought when you signed something, it was as good as done. And is upheld in court. Kind of the same as giving your word, or swearing an oath, but legally binding.
The case should be written off soon. It won't go anywhere.

Just because an agreement is written down, doesn't make it a valid contract. I doubt it would be a valid contract in court, because despite not knowing all the terms of the agreement, it doesn't sound like there was any consideration exchanged. I could be wrong. Even so, the state has the right to void contracts that are against public policy. Sounds like this agreement is one of agreements contrary to public policy.

[avatar4321]

I don't think it will written off. We've seen previous cases where the child's well being trumps any contract. What I draw from this is that men should not, under any circumstances, donate sperm if they do not wish to be regarded as the legal father because you will be on the hook for any human being that results should all else fail.

Considering an agreement not to be held responsible for any children doesn't actually change the fact that the man is the child's father, perhaps the public policy voiding his agreement isn't necessarily a bad one, per se. Though I think it's pretty darn messed up to promise a guy he doesnt have any responsibilities toward the child if he donates the sperm and then turn around and sue him.

Children need their father. Men shouldn't be carelessly creating children they have no intention of taking care of.

[mundame]

I thought when you signed something, it was as good as done. And is upheld in court. Kind of the same as giving your word, or swearing an oath, but legally binding.
The case should be written off soon. It won't go anywhere.

The contract was with the two women, but this is not the problem: it's the State that has to pay for the child now that they've bugged out, so the State goes after the real (and solvent) parent.

I think the State has a good case here. People have volunteered to create new persons all over the country by donating sperm. When people do that in more hands-on situations, let's say, they are held responsible by the State for the offspring. I don't see why they shouldn't be in the sperm donor cases!


This is yet one more anti-natalist policy change; so many social changes lately have been in the direction of lessening population. I think it's an instinctive general move to lessen the gross overpopulation of humans on the planet.

Or maybe I should shorten my sights: maybe it's a sign of an unhealthy nation that expects revolution and big trouble. I was just reading that shortly before the Revolution the French government became very concerned that France was depopulating.

[taft2012]

Procreating with one female, in a normal direct deposit manner, is sufficient enough to expose oneself to the traditional laundry list of female-related psychoses.

Donating sperm, through a third party, to a pair of lesbian man-haters is simply asking for trouble.

[mundame]

Yuck.

Talk about misogynist.

[Marcus Aurelius]

should this case be upheld, and the donor liable for support, I would think that is the end of any sperm banks in that state.

[fj1200]

I thought when you signed something, it was as good as done. And is upheld in court. Kind of the same as giving your word, or swearing an oath, but legally binding.

Just because an agreement is written down, doesn't make it a valid contract. I doubt it would be a valid contract in court, because despite not knowing all the terms of the agreement, it doesn't sound like there was any consideration exchanged. I could be wrong. Even so, the state has the right to void contracts that are against public policy. Sounds like this agreement is one of agreements contrary to public policy.

The state was not party to the contract to right off its rights/obligations to the child and the parties involved did not follow the law that would have eliminated the state's interest/obligation.

... to a pair of lesbian man-haters is simply asking for trouble.

Umm, as far as I read those "man-haters" were supporting the man's efforts.

should this case be upheld, and the donor liable for support, I would think that is the end of any sperm banks in that state.

Assuming that they have a licensed physician on staff, they would be safe under state law.

http://news.yahoo.com/child-support-claim-rankles-sperm-donor-lesbian-couple-014725388.html
...
Marotta will ask the court in a hearing January 8 to dismiss the claim, which centers on a state law that the sperm must be donated through a licensed physician in order for the father to be free of any later financial obligations. Marotta gave a container of semen to the couple, who found him on Craigslist, instead of donating through a doctor or clinic.
The case is seen as having repercussions for other sperm donors. Sperm banks routinely provide sperm to people who want to conceive a child on the understanding that the donors are not responsible for the children.

They were all ignorant of the law.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

should this case be upheld, and the donor liable for support, I would think that is the end of any sperm banks in that state.

Assuming that they have a licensed physician on staff, they would be safe under state law.

What does having or not having a licensed physician on staff have to do with the possible financial responsibility of the sperm donor for the conceived child?

You apparently missed my point. If the state holds a sperm donor financially responsible for a conceived child, and it's upheld in court, sperm banks will see a significant drop in donations, as the donors will not want to be financially liable for support... that would end sperm banks in the state. The staffing at said sperm banks is immaterial.

[fj1200]

What does having or not having a licensed physician on staff have to do with the possible financial responsibility of the sperm donor for the conceived child?

Did you read the part about the laws of the state?

You apparently missed my point. If the state holds a sperm donor financially responsible for a conceived child, and it's upheld in court, sperm banks will see a significant drop in donations, as the donors will not want to be financially liable for support... that would end sperm banks in the state. The staffing at said sperm banks is immaterial.

I didn't miss your point, it seemed to be ignorant of the law.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius
You apparently missed my point. If the state holds a sperm donor financially responsible for a conceived child, and it's upheld in court, sperm banks will see a significant drop in donations, as the donors will not want to be financially liable for support... that would end sperm banks in the state. The staffing at said sperm banks is immaterial.

I didn't miss your point, it seemed to be ignorant of the law.

The law is immaterial to my point. Regardless of what the law says, if potential sperm donors sees a case where a donor is held financially liable for a conceived child, they are not going to painstakingly research the case to see if the details apply to them as well. They will simply not donate to avoid even the remote possibility they would be liable financially. THAT, would shut down sperm banks in the state.