The state of Kansas in the U.S. forced a same-sex couple to divulge their sperm donors name so it could go back on him for child support, an article in the Toronto Star reported, Wednesday, January 2, 2013.
William Marotta, 46, told The Topeka Capital-Journal newspaper he was "a little" scared for financial reasons. Marotta, married but with no children of his own, provided sperm for Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner in 2009 privately, and this seems to be the loophole through which the state is reaching, despite his giving up all parental rights, including financial responsibility at that time.
Bauer and Schreiner recently applied for state benefits, and the state demanded the donor's name for now 3-year-old daughter. They did not contact Marotta for any assistance.
According to the Toronto Star, "The state contends the agreement between Marotta and the women is not valid because Kansas law requires a licensed physician to perform artificial insemination."
“If a sperm donor makes his contribution through a licensed physician and a child is conceived, the donor is held harmless under state statute. In cases where the parties do not go through a physician or a clinic, there remains the question of who actually is the father of a child or children,” Angela de Rocha, a spokeswoman for the Kansas Department for Children and Families, said in a statement.
The concerns, clearly, are whether the state should have a right to demand private information such as a sperm donor's identity, and expect that donor to step up as biological parent. The couple, acting as responsible parents would, approached the state for assistance to which they would be entitled if they were the biological parents. This begs the question as to whether any adoptive parent (of any gender) would face the same road block. And to take that further, who takes financial responsibility in a case where the child was given up for adoption. The fear here is that a dangerous precedent could be set.
Marotta's case is fully supported by the child's parents, Bauer and Schreiner. Bauer was apparently diagnosed with "a significant illness" which has been keeping her from working, and as a result, she sought health insurance from the state for their daughter. The state insisted she provide the sperm donors name or health insurance and any benefits would be denied.
Marotta said Monday he doesn’t resent the fact that Schreiner had to provide his name to the state, but he said he does resent the state forcing this information out of the couple.
Marotta's attorneys are filing to have the case dismissed, and it's slated to be heard January 8, 2013.
Comments