Responded to Craigslist ad seeking sperm donor

by Walter Olson on January 23, 2014

And now he must pay child support, a judge has ruled, reasoning that William Marotta had not succeeded in waiving his parental responsibilities because a physician had not overseen the artificial insemination as required by Kansas law. [ABA Journal, earlier]

{ 4 comments }

1 Marty McKeever 01.23.14 at 7:45 pm

Why would a doctor be required unless there was some medical infertility involved?

I expect this guy to appeal, claiming at worst he’s guilty of “practicing medicine without a license.”

2 Hugo S. Cunningham 01.24.14 at 10:40 am

The Kansas requirement can be defended if it includes a social worker’s determination that the would-be parents are stable and solvent, hence unlikely to leave the child as a public charge.

3 OBQuiet 01.26.14 at 9:36 pm

While IANAL, I will take a rather odd position that the entire concept is Male Paternal responsibility is inherently discriminatory in that women have the option of abortion to end both their own and the “male’ donor’s” duties while men have no such option available.

Shouldn’t “Our Bodies, Our Selves” also mean “Our Bodies, Our Responsibility”?

This is NOT a comment on the legality of Abortion itself, only that if it is legally available, then EITHER parties should be allowed to disclaim legal/financial responsibility. Even then, the system discriminates in that the woman gets to veto the man’s choice. So perhaps it should be illegal on equal protection grounds?

4 gitarcarver 01.27.14 at 1:36 am

Hugo,

I am sorry, but I don’t think I understand what you a saying.

If a family (in this case two lesbians) are deemed “stable and solvent,” the sperm donor should not be held accountable for the child support?

People have to get the permission of the state to have children?

Why is it that men who were tricked into believing they were the father of a child have to continue to pay child support even after DNA tests show the father is someone else? In this case, the sperm donor never had contact with the child, so why isn’t the woman who bailed on the relationship held to the same standard of a “parent?” The child only knew two parents (the couple) and yet the one person they did not know is on the hook for child support?

I don’t see a great deal of consistency in this decision at all.

Comments on this entry are closed.