The Cost Of Doing A Good Deed

On Saturday the Kansas City Star posted an article about William Marotta, who is being sued for child support because he answered and ad on Craigslist placed by a lesbian couple looking for a sperm donor.

This is the story:

Marotta (the donor), Bauer and Schreiner (the lesbian couple) signed an agreement saying Marotta would be paid $50 per semen donation, with the arrangement including a clear understanding that he would have no parental rights whatsoever with the child or children.

The agreement also called for Bauer and Schreiner to hold Marotta harmless “for any child support payments demanded of him by any other person or entity, public or private, including any district attorney’s office or other state or county agency, regardless of the circumstances or said demand.”

Marotta’s attorney, Hannah Schroller, said her client consulted with his wife and decided to donate free rather than take the $50. In the years since Schreiner gave birth to a daughter through artificial insemination, Marotta received periodic email updates on the child but hasn’t had much contact with the couple, Schroller said.

On Oct. 3, attorney Mark McMillan filed a petition on behalf of the Department of Children and Families seeking a ruling that Marotta is the father of Schreiner’s child and owes a duty to support her. It said the department provided cash assistance totaling $189 for the girl for July through September 2012 and had paid medical expenses totaling nearly $6,000.

In 2007 the Kansas Supreme Court ruled:

The Kansas Supreme Court today upheld legislation governing artificial insemination, ruling that a known sperm donor does not acquire parental rights unless there is a written agreement with a child’s mother.

The decision affirming the statute’s constitutionality was the first of its kind in the nation, arising out of consolidated actions filed by a mother of twins conceived through artificial insemination and by the known sperm donor for the procedure.

The mother and donor disagreed on whether they had entered into an oral agreement giving rise to parental rights for the donor. They also disagreed on whether certain documents constituted a written agreement.

What a mess. It will be interesting to see how this case is decided.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Where Is Common Sense ?

Fox 25 News in Boston posted a story yesterday about a rapist who is requesting visiting rights to the child he fathered in the rape. Seriously?

The story reports:

An admitted Massachusetts rapist is seeking visitation rights to the child he fathered after raping his underage victim, setting the stage for a precedent-setting legal fight in the Bay State.

There is a sentence in this story that indicates where our society is going:

The attorney for the man who admitted raping the teenager would not comment on his client’s fight for visitation rights. But he did claim the relationship was consensual, even though he acknowledged it was inappropriate, given the victim was only 14 and his client was 20.

The bottom line:

“The consequences of sentencing this man to probation for 16 years, which is really until the child becomes an adult, and making him declare paternity and pay child support, includes that this guy gets a legal father-child relationship out of the deal,” Murphy (family attorney attorney Wendy Murphy) said.

Murphy has filed a motion with the court, asking the judge to amend the sentencing conditions and order the man to pay restitution instead of child support, which would force him to support the child he fathered but not give him visitation and other parental rights.

Murphy’s motion also asks that the man be ordered to stay away from the mother and the child.

“All this family wants is to cut the cord. Get the rapist out of their lives. And if the judge wants to help them financially that’s great. But let’s call it restitution, not child support,” Murphy said.

It will be interesting to see how the court rules on this. I really can understand the judge’s decision for probation, but I think a restraining order should be included in that sentence to protect both the mother and the child. Regardless of whether or not you choose to blame the victim, it is obvious that the 20-year-old father had very poor judgement and very poor moral standards.

Enhanced by Zemanta