Submit your comments on this article |
-Short Attention Span Theater- |
Judge rules that Kansan who provided sperm to lesbian couple owes child support |
2014-01-24 |
[KANSASCITY] A man who provided sperm to a lesbian couple in response to an online ad is the father of a child born to one of the women and must pay child support, a Kansas judge ruled Wednesday. How to get screwed without getting laid... Topeka resident William Marotta had argued that he had waived his parental rights and didn't intend to be a father. Shawnee County District Judge Mary Mattivi rejected that claim, saying the parties didn't involve a licensed physician in the artificial insemination process and thus Marotta didn't qualify as a sperm donor, The Topeka Capital-Journal reported. "In this case, quite simply, the parties failed to perform to statutory requirement of the Kansas Parentage Act in not enlisting a licensed physician at some point in the artificial insemination process, and the parties' self-designation of (Marotta) as a sperm donor is insufficient to relieve (Marotta) of parental right and responsibilities to the child," Mattivi wrote. The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in October 2012, seeking to have Marotta declared the father of a child born to Jennifer Schreiner in 2009. The state's objective was to hold Marotta responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance the state provided, as well as future child support. |
Posted by:Fred |
#10 Looking for a rod for the lady man Man lady I accompany I'm getting the advice I'm chasing I'm gonna have a new baby But what am I gonna chuck My body just cannot grind I really need a man that's gonna learn To give me all his sperm Love with a turkey baster Sticking it in while sqeezing out Love with a turkey baster Getting knocked up with the sperm I found |
Posted by: swksvolFF 2014-01-24 20:57 |
#9 Barbara, I may have misworded my comment. The point I was trying to make was that even if a woman is not on welfare she could still demand child support. After reading the article more carefully, I see that it was the welfare department that sued. |
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2014-01-24 20:57 |
#8 #6 Rambler, then what was the state assistance mentioned in the article? "about $6,000 in public assistance the state provided" |
Posted by: Barbara 2014-01-24 19:46 |
#7 Schreiner and Marotta had a baby. The dad, a Bauer, was a lady. Most folks thought that they were black, Just welfare cases smoking crack. They all sound kinda white to me, But they could be passing, yessirree! Whuffo I got this misperception? Come kiss yo momma, misconception! |
Posted by: Zenobia Floger6220 2014-01-24 19:11 |
#6 Barbara, a woman doesn't need to be on welfare to demand child support. See Helen Smith's book Men on Strike for other child support demands as outrageous as this one. |
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2014-01-24 13:48 |
#5 If he has to pay, he needs to demand regular visitation as well. And show up for it. (And he also needs to never be alone with that child, but always have a witness.) If it inconveniences the "mothers," so much the better. And, since there are 2 of them, why the hell are they on welfare? One of them should be working. |
Posted by: Barbara 2014-01-24 13:25 |
#4 Works for me. I don't see why the taxpayers should be responsible. |
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2014-01-24 11:57 |
#3 IMO, this is a good thing (as legal precedent) because I've a very jaundiced opinion of the products of single (turkey baster) motherhood. |
Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2014-01-24 10:40 |
#2 Without knowing the race of the people, This sounds like a BLACK "Gimme", and I'm not responsible. |
Posted by: Redneck Jim 2014-01-24 10:04 |
#1 So, by extension, any male who finds out his spouse conspired to make false official statements on birth certificate when the DNA of the child turns out to be someone else, is relieved of financial support of said child? And the mother held accountable for the conspiracy? NOT. |
Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-01-24 09:27 |