A Kansas sperm donor says his parental rights and obligations ended after his donation. However, in a case that has drawn national headlines, the court says otherwise.
In 2009, William Marotta found an advertisement on Craigslist seeking a sperm donor. Marotta met with the lesbian couple that posted the ad, signed a contract waiving his parental rights, and donated his sperm to the couple, receiving $50. The couple split up one year later, and after one of the women stopped working due to an illness, she applied for state aid.
In October 2012, the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) filed a case seeking to have Marotta declared the father of this child, which the state asserted would make him responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance, as well as future child support.
When the case came before Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi, Marotta argued that he waived his parental rights and had no personal relationship with the couple. The state’s attorney’s argued that the contract was moot because the parties didn’t follow a 1994 Kansas law requiring a licensed physician to perform the artificial insemination when donors were involved.
The DCF also argued that the sperm donor contract overlooks ‘‘the well-established law in this state that a person cannot contract away his or her obligations to support their child. That right for support belongs to the child, not the parents.” Therefore, the contract would be facially invalid.
Marotta’s 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 doesn’t specifically require the artificial insemination to be carried out by a physician. ‘‘We stand by that contract,’’ Swinnen said. ‘‘There was no personal relationship whatsoever between my client and the mother, or the partner of the mother, or the child.’’
Judge Mattivi rejected Marotta’s argument, ordering that he must pay child support. The judge held:
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.
Marotta says he will appeal the judge’s ruling. We’ll keep you posted.