Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Sperm Donor Sued For Back Child Support.

You know how to old saying goes... "no good deed goes unpunished"? Well, a guy in Kansas who gave the most noble of gifts finds himself facing every man's worst nightmare: back child support.
Kansas law governing artificial insemination is outdated and fails to recognize modern concepts of family, according to the attorney for a Topeka man being pursued to pay child support for a girl born to a lesbian couple as the result of his sperm donation.

Kansas law says a sperm donor is not the father of a child if a doctor handles the artificial insemination.

But the law does not specifically address the donor's rights and obligations when no doctor was involved, as was the case in 2009 when William Marotta donated sperm to Jennifer Schreiner and then-partner Angela Bauer, and Schreiner became pregnant.

Lawyer Ben Swinnen argued Thursday that Marotta, 46, can't be declared the father of the now 3-year-old child, because the donor and moms had a written agreement that he had no parental rights or responsibilities.

Swinnen also noted that nine states have laws saying a sperm or egg donor is not the parent of a child conceived through artificial reproduction.

The Kansas Department for Children and Families sued Marotta in October to force him to pay child support and reimburse the state for more than $6,000 in benefits that Schreiner obtained for the child after she split with Bauer in 2010.
Let me state this clearly: this is truly some bullsh*t.

The man reportedly didn't know the couple and donated his specimen after answering an ad in the classified. Maybe he was hoping to get some action out of the deal, only to be greeted at the door by two women and a turkey baster. Now, years later the couple splits and he finds himself footing the bill for a child he signed away all custodial rights to. Eff the court system. I think we need a very special episode of Maury to settle this the right way.

It's hard to believe that some states can't exercises basic common sense in a case like this and simply leave this dude alone. It's enough to have everyone know you fell for the ole' "two chicks, one turkey baster" trick[1]. It's another altogether to get slapped with back child support. This just seems so trivial and pointless, and I hope this case gets dropped.

It does raise an interesting question though...

Question: If there was any law on the books that you could get rid of, which one would it be? No freaky stuff please, but tell me what you'd do away with.

[1] Happens to the best of us, amirite?!?

blog comments powered by Disqus

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.