This time last year, I covered a Kansas man’s struggle with the state of Kansas on whether or not he should pay child support to the mother of his biological child and back pay to the state for expenses related to the healthcare and feeding of the child. This may seem like a no-brainer, but there’s a twist: William Marotta was a sperm donor and the child’s mother is a lesbian woman who was in a long-term committed relationship and domestic partnership with another woman.?
On Thursday, courts ruled that William Marotta will indeed be required to pay the $6,000 that the state has spent on providing for the child (via SNAP and Medicaid) and Marotta will also be required to pay child support.
From the San Jose Mercury News:
Topeka resident William Marotta had argued that he had waived his parental rights and didn’t intend to be a father. Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi rejected that claim, saying the parties didn’t involve a licensed physician in the artificial insemination process and thus Marotta didn’t qualify as a sperm donor, The Topeka Capital-Journal (http://bit.ly/LHwLyW) reported.
“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,” Mattivi wrote.
What do you think? Should William Marotta be financially responsible for the child? To view all of the detailed background on this story, you can read my previous article.
