HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Kansas pursues child supp...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:03 PM

Kansas pursues child support from sperm donor

TOPEKA -- A Kansas man who signed away any parental rights when he donated sperm to a Topeka couple is now being pursued by the state for child support after the mother received financial assistance for the baby.

A lawyer for William Marotta argues that the state’s effort to have Marotta declared the baby’s father runs contrary to a 2007 Kansas Supreme Court ruling on sperm donors, The Topeka Capital-Journal reported.

A hearing on Marotta’s motion to dismiss the case is scheduled for Jan. 8 in Shawnee County District Court.

Marotta, a Topeka mechanic who has taken in foster children with his wife, answered a Craigslist ad in 2009 from a lesbian couple seeking a sperm donor.

The women who placed the ad, Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, described themselves in an email to Marotta as a “financially stable lesbian couple,” with Bauer working outside the home and Schreiner being a stay-at-home mom with their other children

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/12/29/3986152/state-pursuing-child-support-from.html#storylink=cpy

60 replies, 4445 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 60 replies Author Time Post
Reply Kansas pursues child support from sperm donor (Original post)
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 OP
benld74 Dec 2012 #1
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #2
benld74 Dec 2012 #5
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #11
bluestateguy Dec 2012 #3
kelliekat44 Dec 2012 #13
jody Dec 2012 #4
appleannie1 Dec 2012 #6
Squinch Dec 2012 #30
Summer Hathaway Dec 2012 #51
dembotoz Dec 2012 #7
Capt.Rocky300 Dec 2012 #8
SheilaT Dec 2012 #58
dkf Dec 2012 #9
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #17
dkf Dec 2012 #22
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #24
FreeJoe Dec 2012 #27
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #31
dsc Dec 2012 #38
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #39
dsc Dec 2012 #42
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #43
dsc Dec 2012 #46
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #48
dsc Dec 2012 #49
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #50
dsc Dec 2012 #53
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #57
Orrex Dec 2012 #34
Dr. Strange Dec 2012 #54
Chemisse Dec 2012 #28
Thinkingabout Dec 2012 #10
Blue_In_AK Dec 2012 #12
ProfessionalLeftist Dec 2012 #14
Spryguy Dec 2012 #15
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #16
Earth_First Dec 2012 #19
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #20
Care Acutely Dec 2012 #18
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #21
kydo Dec 2012 #23
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #35
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #25
raccoon Dec 2012 #26
Chemisse Dec 2012 #29
aaaaaa5a Dec 2012 #32
Spryguy Dec 2012 #37
aaaaaa5a Dec 2012 #41
Spryguy Dec 2012 #56
aaaaaa5a Dec 2012 #59
Spryguy Dec 2012 #60
CanonRay Dec 2012 #33
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #36
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #45
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #47
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #40
Romulox Dec 2012 #44
Kalidurga Dec 2012 #52
SDjack Dec 2012 #55

Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:09 PM

1. Kansas is truly sinking lower than I could ever possibly imagine

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benld74 (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:11 PM

2. It's a nuthouse here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:18 PM

5. I have a high school buddy living just over the MO/KS line

even HE has changed. Something in the water? Are you life long KS or moved there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benld74 (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:05 PM

11. Life long

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:14 PM

3. That's why it's not a good idea to ever donate your sperm

You never know how the laws or court rulings could change years down the road.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:10 PM

13. Or your eggs for that matter. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:15 PM

4. Script rewritten, "Toto, I've a feeling we're in Kansas." nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:19 PM

6. Nice way to prevent couples from becoming parents if the are lesbian or the husband can't father.

a child.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appleannie1 (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 08:26 AM

30. +1. Wonder if that's the agenda here. Bet it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:45 PM

51. Absolutely the agenda here.

Scare off sperm donors with potential after-the-fact financial responsibilities = less gay/lesbian couples parenting children.

As obvious as it is shameless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:23 PM

7. kansas is sort of the test tube version of republican rule

i lived in kck during the mid 70s as a vista

it seemed ok back them but i never had a desire to put down roots there.

i guess i am happy i got out when i did

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:31 PM

8. A good friend of mine..........

was transferred from Portland, OR to Olathe a few years ago. He refers to it as Kansasstan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt.Rocky300 (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:19 PM

58. From Portland to Olathe?

Oh, how the gods must hate him. What do you suppose he did that they punished him like that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:56 PM

9. Does that mean the mother opened herself up to losing custody

 

Especially if she is unable to care for the child?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:21 AM

17. Your wingnut slip is showing again

Gingrich and other wingnuts floated the idea of bringing back orphanages for welfare mothers. It wasn't well received even among Republicans. The idea is completely despicable and ludicrous and is only gets much traction in the wingnuttiest of wingnut circles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:45 AM

22. So financial circumstance is never a consideration in custody?

 

I didn't realize that. So sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 07:15 AM

24. So where does it say custody was in contention at all?

Now you're just being disengenuous after being busted for peddling wingnut nonsense.....again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 08:07 AM

27. i think it raises an interesting point

If he can be forced to pay child support, it seems reasonable that he could also insist on parental rights, possibly even including some form of custody. It really does seem like an insidious plot to make storm donation less attractive to both the donor and recipient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreeJoe (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 08:31 AM

31. I'm pretty sure this is already the case pretty much everywhere

In this case there's zero evidence the biological father wants custodial privileges of any sort. The idea dkf is floating is that any woman who must rely on public assistance should be subject to having her kids taken away. It's among the wingnuttiest of wingnut ideas.

Newt Gingrich, the soon-to-be Republican Speaker of the House, was eager to flex his muscle. Minor controversy erupted over remarks he made about welfare reform and orphanages. Some Republicans had suggested that the nation could reduce welfare rolls by placing the children of welfare mothers in orphanages. The idea was to prohibit states from paying welfare benefits for two groups of children: Those whose paternity was not established and those born out of wedlock to women under 18. The savings, according to this proposal, would be used to establish and operate orphanages and group homes for unwed mothers.

I thought this was a horrible idea. In a speech before the New York Women's Agenda on Nov. 30, 1994, I criticized Gingrich.

Gingrich swung back: "I'd ask her to go to Blockbuster and rent the Mickey Rooney movie about Boys Town . I don't understand liberals who live in enclaves of safety who say, 'Oh, this would be a terrible thing.'"
Source: Living History, by Hillary Rodham Clinton, p.262-263 , Nov 1, 2003

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:12 AM

38. It isn't the poster who brought this up it is the state

It seems only fair that if the man is going to have to pay for the child, as the state thinks he should, then he should have a shot at custody of the child.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:38 AM

39. Nothing in the story says anything about custody

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:00 AM

42. the money and custody come hand in hand

either he is a father or he isn't. If he is then he has to pay up and gets a shot at custody if he isn't then he doesn't pay and doesn't get a shot at custody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:10 AM

43. If he doesn't desire custody then it's a mute point

...and not worth my time discussing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #43)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:23 AM

46. He may well want it now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:17 PM

48. Sure. It's quite common for sperm donors to seek custody

You make a very good point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:33 PM

49. One who have to pay support otherwise

Presumably he wouldn't have to pay support if he had custody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:40 PM

50. There's no indication that he's paying support now

The state is just trying to get him to pay support and he took them to court and will almost certainly prevail. The state's argument is ludicrous and is obviously only intended to punish and discourage homosexual couples from having children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #50)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:00 PM

53. given the state of Kansas and elected judges

I wouldn't be 100% sure of his prevailing. One would hope that he does but one shouldn't count on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:09 PM

57. The SCOTUS has already ruled on it

So it's hard to imagine any other outcome and even in the outside chance that he doesn't, an appeal to federal court is a slam dunk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreeJoe (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 08:53 AM

34. Storm donation is always a tricky proposition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:01 PM

54. What the hell's wrong with you?

Don't you know better than to end a sentence with a proposition?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 08:16 AM

28. It would sure seem so.

Although one can hardly blame the mother's actions.

But if the donor is responsible for child support, he could be equally in the running for custody of the child.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:59 PM

10. This department must be run by Todd Akin, just as stupid.

Some people needs to get a life, probably testing the waters here especially with a lesbian couple involved. They will say this is a good reason not to allow same sex partners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:08 PM

12. What's the matter with Kansas?

Just when you think they can't get any crazier...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 10:21 PM

14. What bullshit. The man has no parental responsibility here.

What an effed-up sitch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 11:53 PM

15. He needs to "man up" and "pay up!"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spryguy (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:13 AM

16. What? Going to assume this was sarcasm (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:27 AM

19. My god...I hope so! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spryguy (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:32 AM

20. What?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:26 AM

18. Kansas is some scary shit. Punish any and all living apart from the teabagger-approved

vision of 'Murica.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:45 AM

21. What a jerk-off thing to do (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:52 AM

23. So are they going to pursue the fathers of all forced and aborted births as well?

just wondering.

mental note to self - avoid Kansas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kydo (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:02 AM

35. That's probably next on the agenda

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 07:25 AM

25. The pressure to become a theocracy is growing in so much of this country.

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 08:00 AM

26. I hope this one goes to the US Supreme Court. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 08:26 AM

29. This is a pretty interesting case.

The key point is the use of a physician for the insemination.

The state is saying if the semen was used at home, rather than inserted by a doctor, than the father is liable.

I can see where they would have to draw the line somewhere. What is to stop anybody from making similar arrangements with a guy they actually slept with? Or worse, having a boyfriend coerce a woman into signing similar documents?

It would be a slippery slope.

This could all be prevented if the lesbian couple were legally married (hopefully a possibility soon in all states) and the non-mother adopted the baby. Then it wouldn't matter how she got pregnant.

In the meantime, the poor guy! I hope he prevails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 08:31 AM

32. Further proof that men have no rights in family court.


I often refer to it as our next great civil rights cause... making men and women equal with regard to family, parental, divorce and custody law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:04 AM

37. Haha...yeah...

 

We''ll worry about that when the vast discrimination women face in every other walk of life is made equal first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spryguy (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:59 AM

41. Ha... well...


at least you admit (as any objectionable person would) that there is vast discrimination against men in family court. In your case its just not at the top of your social agenda.

If nothing else, that's a start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:49 PM

56. Men have all the rights and all the power. Everywhere.

 

This is a rare example of a little bit of the scales being balanced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spryguy (Reply #56)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:36 PM

59. Actually, I wouldn't call family court a "rare" example. Discrimination in this area is quite common


and the biased laws affect millions of people and have terrible impacts on millions of children and families across the country.


Some of us believe its important to fight injustice everywhere. Others believe bias against one group is okay, as long as the bias is against a group we don't support, because of our own personal prejudice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #59)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:33 PM

60. Social Justice Theory would say you can't be biased against an oppressor.

 

Nor can you discriminate against a group that holds all the power. (In America, this means straight white christian men.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 08:46 AM

33. Kansas is too screwed up to even drive through anymore

Not that it was ever a delight. It's vying with Mississippi for most fucked up state in the Union.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanonRay (Reply #33)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:03 AM

36. You've obviously not driven through the right part of Kansas

The Flint Hills are absolutely beautiful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:17 AM

45. I-70 from Kansas City to Denver = surefire cure for

 

insomnia!

One giant wheatfield punctuated with an oil well\pump here and there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:35 AM

47. So you slept from Topeka to Salina?







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:43 AM

40. Christ on a cracker.

All I've got to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:13 AM

44. What if the mother was a single mom, who wanted to raise the child on her own...

Should she and the biological father be allowed to agree together that the child shouldn't have a right to support from the father?

I think not.

So how is this "informal" surrogacy situation different?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:51 PM

52. But, the mother wasn't a single mom.

This situation is different to say the least. IMO the other parent should be paying child support. This guy didn't agree to be a father and in fact was doing the couple a favor. It makes no difference if they were same sex or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:16 PM

55. I spent a month in Kansas one afternoon. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread