After putting an ad on Craigslit, an agreement was made between Jennifer Schreiner, Angela Bauer and William Marotta. William was to be the sperm donor but to not have any parental rights. The couple chooses to have the child with William. Before they made this arrangement, the couple had 8 children though adoption and the foster care system. The couple eventually splits and now Jennifer has fallen on hard times. She asks the state for financial help with raising the children who are living with her. The state presses the Jennifer for information on who the father is. She caves, and gives up the sperm donor’s information. Because Jennifer is the 3-year-old’s sole parent under Kansas law, which does not recognize same-sex unions, the state cannot seek child support from Angela. The state has to chase down William even though he signed a legitimate contract. The state intervenes in the private contract, and sues the sperm donor for damages and asks for child support. Parents one and two don’t matter when it comes to child support in this state – only the man who gave his sperm.
What does this say about adoption, same sex unions who adopt, being a sole provider (better known as a single parent), couples who sign private contracts for sperm donation, and sperm donation in general?
It seems that it is mighty convenient to be female in this case. I guess you can by-pass your responsibility and just walk away from your child support obligations when it is convenient. When is that ever the case if you are a man? Isn’t the ex a deadbeat mom? Why did Jennifer give up the information about William and put him in this position? It is easy to abdicate all responsibility when times get rough isn’t it?
United: Ms Bauer and Ms Schreiner celebrating their same-sex union.
….The agreement also called for Bauer and Schreiner to hold Marotta harmless “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…..”
….On Oct. 3, attorney Mark McMillan filed a petition on behalf of the Department of Children and Families seeking a ruling that Marotta is the father of Schreiner’s child and owes a duty to support her. It said the department provided cash assistance totaling $189 for the girl for July through September 2012 and had paid medical expenses totaling nearly $6,000…
The man’s attorney stated ….“My understanding is that after being pressed on paternity of the child, she gave them William’s name as a sperm donor. The state then filed this suit to determine paternity,”
Think about what is going on. Does it make any sense? Maybe from the state’s perspective it does. SOMEONE has to pay for these kids right? The couple is no longer together and the custodial parent asked the state to help out with necessary expenses. The state says ok, they will pay for child care expenses, but only for a while. They need to find the father of the child and make him pay. By law, they have to disregard the partner of the mother altogether.
Child support was initially invented in an attempt to get father to pay for the expenses of raising their children instead of the state. Decades ago when many women were not in the workforce in the numbers they currently are it made sense to make a father pay for the care of their children a certain degree. Decades ago, women did not work in the numbers they do now. Today, women make up the majority of the workforce. Why are we still in that same mindset? Times have changed. Child support needs to change right along with it. The laws of each state might want to address same sex couples and include the terms parents in the language instead of father. Both parents need to be responsible and held to the same standard.
This case also involves Kansas state law with regard to who is considered a sperm donor and who isn’t. There is case law dealing with instances of insemination with and without state licensed facilities. In 2007 when a man decided to peruse parental rights after he had been a sperm donor, he was denied, but when a woman chooses to peruse financial aid (child support), the state things it is ok for him to be a ‘father’ then. Being a father in this case means open wallet. It makes little sense to me.
Schroller , the man’s attorney, argued that the case was consistent with a 2007 case in which the Kansas Supreme Court denied parental rights to a man who sought them after providing a sperm donation under similar circumstances. A licensed physician performed the insemination in the 2007 case.
Still, Schroller wrote that Marotta took the same actions as the man in the 2007 case did, and he — like that man — should be considered a sperm donor, not a father.
She stressed that sperm banks regularly ship sperm donations for the intended purpose of artificial insemination within the United States and abroad to both residential and medical facility addresses.
Schroller argued in court documents that if a donor is free of parental responsibility only when a doctor performs an insemination, “then any woman in Kansas could have sperm donations shipped to her house, inseminate herself without a licensed physician and seek out the donor for financial support because her actions made him a father, not a sperm donor. This goes against the very purpose of the statute to protect sperm donors as well as birth mothers.”
Complex, but the overall concept is that the father is considered financially responsible in this case even though the ex ‘wife’ is still alive and kicking.
Why do people still think the father is financially responsible for the creation that occurs from the union of his sperm and a woman’s egg? Yes, it is state law in Kansas, but it appears that we have this mindset in every state. It seems that a child is only financially tied to the father, but not the mother.
What is the mother’s financial responsibility in this case or any other case of child support? Have you ever asked that question when child support is rewarded? Why are child support recipients not accountable for how the money is spent? Why are they not accountable for their own proportional share when child support fines are handed out in family court. I asked those questions years ago, and when I thought about it, I chose to follow a different path. I hope all men in the future start thinking about what is really going on in our society. It’s time we put an end to old cultural norms and start making all segments of our society hold up their end of the bargain. Two people create children and both should be equally financially responsible.
This system that was set up years ago has outlived it’s usefulness. It allows the state to intervene in contracts that are between two parties and assesses punitive damages to men simply due to their anatomy. Child support, and they many agencies that exist to support its current form need to be completely dismantled and reformed to reflect life in modern society.