Donating sperm to a woman or couple who can't produce their
own child naturally is not the most sensible or common thing. It's is
supposed to be an act designed by financially distressed men in order to
raise some extra cash or to help a couple achieve their parenting
dreams. I think most men have been asked to do that (I know I have) and
in some situations it may make sense. But one thing it's not supposed to
lead to is a lawsuit for child support payments from the donor.
The, "Yes you can have my sperm" arrangement between sperm donors and couples seeking fertility treatment usually means that the donor relinquishes parental rights and financial responsibility for any of the children produced by his seed. She gets the sperm, he gets assurance that is the end of his legal responsibility. In the majority of cases, he gives the sperm and walks away from the relationship with no legal responsibilities thereafter.
A Topeka, Kansas donor named William Morotta, thought so too. Three years ago he answered a Criagslist ad placed by a lesbian couple who wanted an a baby, and the couple agreed to use William's seed. But now one of the women involved, the one who worked to provide funds for the child, in the transaction has fallen on hard times financially and applied for welfare (Medicaid) for the daughter, who was created with Marotta’s sperm. But the state of Kansas says , "NO! Get the money you need for your daughter from daddy William, not us." Further, Kansas is now suing William for that child support.
Interesting....the state of Kansas is saying that in this case an individual can not sign away parental rights, including financial obligations. So instead of the state of Kansas paying the couple welfare, it wants William to pay in its place. Does that sound reasonable? The basis for the state's claim is the agreement William and the couple had to never hold William financially responsible for the child is invalid because Kansas statute 23-2208(f) says that the mom must have a licensed physician perform the artificial insemination. The couple did not do that.
But if Kansas is successful in its suit against William, it could deter other men from becoming sperm donors, which would put couples (same sex and heterosexual) in a pickle, since they would be unable to find men willing to give their sperm for...uh....the cause. Maybe Kansas should legalize gay marriage and make the "husband" and wife financially responsible, not the sperm donor. I wonder too, if William is ordered to pay the welfare to the couple because he is the "father", could he not then file a claim to gain custody of "his child", taking the child away from the couple? What a mess.
On thing is certain, that being a message to learn from it all is what mom always says to her boys...."Keep your pants on, not on fire."
The, "Yes you can have my sperm" arrangement between sperm donors and couples seeking fertility treatment usually means that the donor relinquishes parental rights and financial responsibility for any of the children produced by his seed. She gets the sperm, he gets assurance that is the end of his legal responsibility. In the majority of cases, he gives the sperm and walks away from the relationship with no legal responsibilities thereafter.
A Topeka, Kansas donor named William Morotta, thought so too. Three years ago he answered a Criagslist ad placed by a lesbian couple who wanted an a baby, and the couple agreed to use William's seed. But now one of the women involved, the one who worked to provide funds for the child, in the transaction has fallen on hard times financially and applied for welfare (Medicaid) for the daughter, who was created with Marotta’s sperm. But the state of Kansas says , "NO! Get the money you need for your daughter from daddy William, not us." Further, Kansas is now suing William for that child support.
Interesting....the state of Kansas is saying that in this case an individual can not sign away parental rights, including financial obligations. So instead of the state of Kansas paying the couple welfare, it wants William to pay in its place. Does that sound reasonable? The basis for the state's claim is the agreement William and the couple had to never hold William financially responsible for the child is invalid because Kansas statute 23-2208(f) says that the mom must have a licensed physician perform the artificial insemination. The couple did not do that.
But if Kansas is successful in its suit against William, it could deter other men from becoming sperm donors, which would put couples (same sex and heterosexual) in a pickle, since they would be unable to find men willing to give their sperm for...uh....the cause. Maybe Kansas should legalize gay marriage and make the "husband" and wife financially responsible, not the sperm donor. I wonder too, if William is ordered to pay the welfare to the couple because he is the "father", could he not then file a claim to gain custody of "his child", taking the child away from the couple? What a mess.
On thing is certain, that being a message to learn from it all is what mom always says to her boys...."Keep your pants on, not on fire."
No comments:
Post a Comment