This
is absolutely ridiculous! So, in a nutshell, a Kansas man donated his sperm to
help father a child for a lesbian couple. Well, that couple has since parted
ways and now he man is being ordered by the state to pay child support for the
daughter he helped conceive. WHAT? If he was just a sperm donor, how is this
guy liable for the child? Weren't there contracts signed before the in-vitro
fertilization? Come on!
Back
in 2009, 43-year-old mechanic, William Marotta from Topeka, responded to a
Craigslist ad posted by an Angela Bauer and her former partner Jennifer
Schreiner, who were seeking a man to be sperm donor so they could conceive a
child. The three made an arrangement to have Marotta's sperm artificially
inseminated into Schreiner. Under the terms of the agreement, Marotta
relinquished his parental rights, including all financial responsibility. There
you go! It's right there in black and white. So, why is Bill Marotta
responsible to pay child support again? I guess we're about to find out.
In
2010, Bauer and Schreiner, who continue to co-parent eight adopted children
ranging in age from 3 months to 25 years (Who are they? The Brangelina of the
Lesbian community?), parted ways, which raised the issue of who would pay child
support for their little girl. Then, earlier in 2012, Bauer, who had been
supporting Schreiner and the children, became unable to provide health benefits
for the three-year-old, due to a 'significant illness' that prevented her to
work, and the couple applied for state services, which prompted the state to
request the name of the child's father. Because Schreiner was the child's sole
parent under Kansas law, which by the way, does not recognize same-sex
marriage, the state was unable to collect child support from Bauer. So, Kansas
Department of Child and Families filed a child support claim against Marotta.
That is so unfair! What if this guy never wanted to father a child for this
particular reason? A contract is a contract! Once you make him financially
responsible, there is a breach in the contract. I don't agree with this at all!
Wait
till you hear how the court gets him! This is so messed up! Okay, so as if this
case wasn't complicated enough, they're saying that Marotta's contract with the
women, which stated he wasn't liable for financial responsibility for the
child, was null and void because the insemination wasn't performed by a
licensed physician. Oh come on! Supposedly, even though the state is going
after Marotta on behalf of Bauer and Schreiner, the two women have said that
they support Marotta in his efforts to fight the claim and question whether the
state's decision has political motives.
No comments:
Post a Comment