Maybe one of my favorite things is when someone says “that sounds like a Liz case!” (or article, or poem, or whatever) because it’s really nice when someone thinks of me and also because they are usually awesome cases.
Actual Liz cases
Last week, two of the attorneys in my office joyously presented me with the following Liz case:
At the beginning of January, the Department of Children and Families in Kansas sought child support payments from William Marotta for the three year old child he fathered through sperm donation. Through a private agreement with Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, a committed but unmarried couple, Marotta donated his sperm on three separate occasions. On the third attempt, Jennifer became pregnant and Jennifer and Angela raised their daughter as a couple without any involvement from Marotta.
In fact, before donating his sperm to Bauer and Schreiner, Marotta signed a Sperm Donor Contract relinquishing his parental rights to any child conceived through his donation. Though the contract purports to sever Marotta’s rights, it is unsigned by Jennifer, the biological mother, and is neither notarized nor witnessed. Based on these two facts alone, the contract is suspicious, but ultimately served its purpose for three years until the Kansas court stepped in.
You see, in 2010 Bauer and Schreiner separated, but maintained joint parental responsibilities for their child. When Bauer lost her job and was unable to provide health insurance coverage for the child, Schreiner sought health insurance through Medicaid. But before the Kansas Department of Children and Families would approve the application, they requested information about the father of the child and slapped Marotta with a lawsuit for child support payments. Bauer, the non-biological parent of Schreiner’s child attempted to step in and explain that she was the other parent, not Marotta, but the Department of Children and Families and the Kansas court wouldn’t listen.
In fact, the Kansas court is allowing the DCF’s petition for child support payments from Marotta, totaling over $6,000, to go forward. Seems a little wonky, right?
It is. And there’s an explanation for this mess, but it’s a pretty crappy one. Here’s the deal: Kansas expressly prohibits same-sex marriage in its Constitution, so Bauer and Schreiner couldn’t get married. This means that any child born to the couple would not be presumed to be a child of both parties of the couple. (In most states, a child born to a married couple is presumed to be the child of both parties and parental rights are established through this presumption.)
In addition, Kansas has no existing legal avenues for second-parent adoption. Second-parent adoption is a fairly common process allowed in 23 states, whereby the second parent of the child would formally adopt the child with the consent of (or at the same time as) the custodial parent.
So, even though Bauer wanted to provide for and continue to parent the child born to Schreiner, she is kind of unable to under Kansas law. And even though she’s trying to tell the court she’s the other parent… it doesn’t matter, the DCF looks to Marotta for support.
Any state Department of Children and Families, not just Kansas, is going to exhaust all legal possibilities for providing support for a child before issuing any aid. And since Marotta is the biological father of the child and there’s a ton of legal precedent that says you can’t just contract away your parental responsibilities (off the top of my head, see In the Matter of Baby M but there is a plethora of case law to that effect in every state) his Sperm Donor Contract doesn’t work.
Bottom line? Kansas wants to ignore same-sex families and deny them a whole bunch of rights, so the court is unlikely to extend parental rights to a same-sex partner. This means that Marotta will probably be on the hook for child support even though he was never a parent to the child.
Nonsense.
What are your thoughts? Should the sperm donor be on the hook for child support payments? Should the Kansas court deem Bauer the second parent? Does this make you think twice about donating sperm or eggs?
Related articles
- State trying to make sperm donor pay child support (kansascity.com)
I think it’s ridiculous! Heck, I think alimony is ridiculous unless the petitioner is physically unable to work. (And I’m talking in a coma, because there are a great many, deaf, dumb, blind para/quadraplegic people who hold down jobs!)
I realize that this couple may have all their family in Kansas or they may not be fiscally able to do this, however maybe they should think about moving to a pro-gay marriage state? Jus’ sayin’…
(Great blog as always, Liz!)
Thanks, Traci! It is hard to imagine people staying a state that continues to blatantly discriminate against them… I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will declare DOMA unconstitutional and render KS’s discrimination against same-sex couples moot… but until then, I join you in the ridiculousness!
The words “chilling precedent” spring to mind. Also “what decade is this??”
Seriously.
No, sperm donors shouldn’t have to provide child support. I thought one of the main points of having a sperm donor was to get the sperm without being tied to the person producing the sperm, so forcing them to be tied together financially is ridiculous.
Are those their real names? Is this public infomation?
This is all public information.
KS apparently has legislation that allows sperm donors to sever parental rights but only if the donation is done through a doctor. In this case, the doctor the couple went to allegedly refused to sign paperwork saying the couple were fit to parent. I’m not sure if there’s truth to that… I suspect the couple used this donor to save money. They found him through Craigslist and paid $50 for his sperm.
Thank you!
I’m glad they were able to find somebody through CL that matched their needs and was affordable, but it sucks that he’s stuck with child support now. Hmm.
It is complete nonsense….and I’m sad to say that I live in Kansas. While I have loved growing up here I’m totally about to jump ship because I am in the minority when it comes to moving forward. Its pretty embarrassing, and plays into the stereotype that we don’t have sense here. I have sense though…that’s why I read your blog!
Thanks, Erin!
Wow, this is something I never, ever thought about being an issue. What’s stark for me is this hard-to-comprehend complication seems to be so unnecessary since there are two parents who WANT to support the child. A guy who was just looking for some quick cash one random day is supposed to pay for this child that is only “his” by technicality? How ridiculous? Is keeping same-sex couples from “destroying” the sanctity of marriage really that important to ya, Kansas? Like…seriously.
EXACTLY. That is exactly what’s happening here. And apparently it is. You know, because allowing two people who love and WANT to support their child to do so is morally wrong… ugh.
I should note that Bauer and Schreiner are seeking state assistance, so for the time being they are unable to pay for health insurance out of their own pockets – but the bigger picture discrimination is the real issue here, not the temporary need for help.
I have a donor conceived child with my legally domestic partner. Her company will not allow her insurance to cover me or our child. I am self employed. I applied for health care and was questioned. We attempted to present my partner’s finances/etc and they refused. I gave them our donor agreement, blackening out our donor’s name. They found it an invalid agreement (it was signed AND motorized) and refuse to cover me with state medical care because I am non-compliant.
I think donor laws need to be changed. This child is the responsibility of Angie and Jenny. Period.
That being said, I think the state needs to look at the choices and situations these women have made and decide if this couple should have any children in their care!
UGH. Thanks for sharing your story – and good luck with your health insurance battle!