Sperm donor must pay child support
Topeka resident William Marotta had argued that he had waived his parental rights and didnāt intend to be a father. Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi rejected that claim, saying the parties didnāt involve a licensed physician in the artificial insemination process and thus Marotta didnāt qualify as a sperm donor, The Topeka Capital-Journal reported.
āIn 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 partiesā self-designation of (Marotta) as a sperm donor is insufficient to relieve (Marotta) of parental right and responsibilities to the child,ā Mattivi wrote.
The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in Oct 2012 seeking to have Marotta declared the father of a child born to Jennifer Schreiner in 2009. The state was seeking to have Marotta declared the childās father so he can be held responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance the state provided, as well as future child support.
Marotta opposed that action, saying he had contacted Schreiner and her partner at the time, Angela Bauer, in response to an ad they placed on Craigslist seeking a sperm donor. He said he signed a contract waiving his parental rights and responsibilities.
Attorneys for the state contended the contract was moot because the parties didnāt follow a 1994 Kansas law requiring a licensed physician to perform the artificial insemination when donors were involved.
During arguments at a hearing in October, Timothy Keck, co-lead counsel for the state, said the case focused on child support. Marottaās attorney, Benoit Swinnen, cited several court rulings he said support the argument that Marotta is legally a sperm donor and not required to pay child support.
Swinnen also argued that the Kansas statute doesnāt specifically require the artificial insemination to be carried out by a physician.
Court documents show Schreiner indicated she didnāt know the name of the donor or āhave any informationā about him in her application for child support. However, a sperm donor contract between Marotta and the couple includes his name, and the agency noted the couple talked about their appreciation for him in an interview with The Capital-Journal.
A filing by the DCF argues the sperm donor contract overlooks āthe well-established law in this state that a person cannot contract away his or her obligations to support their child.ā





