Should   sperm  donors  be  forced  to  pay  child  support?

Sperm donation is the provision or ‘donation’ by a man, (known as a sperm donor), of his sperm, with the intention that it be used to impregnate a woman who is not his sexual partner. While the sperm donor is the natural or biological father of every child produced as a result of his donations, he is generally not intended to be the legal father. Depending on the jurisdiction and its laws, he may or may not later be eligible to seek parental rights or be held responsible for parental obligations.

Sperm is often donated through a sperm bank or clinic in the United States which are subject to varying state regulations, including restrictions on donor anonymity and number of offspring. By having sperm provided privately and directly to the intended mother, donors and recipients may avoid legal restrictions but also lose the benefit of legal protections of recipient and donor rights and responsibilities.

William Marotta, 46, answered an online ad in 2009 and then he donated sperm by artificial insemination to Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreine. Marotta relinquished all parental rights and was told by the lesbian couple that they wouldn’t look to him for financial assistance for the upkeep of the child.

An agreement was signed by the parties which said; “Jennifer and Angie further agree to indemnify William and hold him 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.”

What that meant that if the state demanded payments for the upkeep of the child if the two women were collecting welfare, the two women would not look to William for the money. Unfortunately, the agreement didn’t prevent the state from collecting the money from William directly.

When Bauer was diagnosed last March with what she calls “a significant illness” that prevents her from working. When Bauer and Schreiner filed for state medical assistance in Kansas, the state demanded the donor’s name so it could collect money from the donor of the now 3-year-old girl. The State authorities told Schreiner that if she didn’t provide the sperm donor’s name, it would deny any health benefits because she was withholding information. Then when the state was given Marotta’s name, they went after him for the money the state was going to spend on Marotta’s medical needs. This would put an added burden on Marotta and his wife, Kimberly who have no biological children but care for foster children. William has been ordered to pay child support for the child including $6,000 in medical expenses.

The state contends that the agreement between Marotta and the women is not valid because Kansas law requires a licensed physician to perform artificial insemination. If a sperm donor makes his contribution through a licensed physician and a child is conceived, the donor is held harmless under state statue. In cases where the parties do not go through a physician or a clinic, there remains the question of who actually is the father of a child or children. A hearing on a motion by Marotta’s attorneys to dismiss the case is scheduled for January 8, 2013 in which I will let my readers know the results when I learn of them.

Bauer and Schreiner have said they fully support Marotta’s efforts to fight the state’s request. Marotta said Monday he doesn’t resent Schreiner for giving the state his name considering the pressure they were under.

I personally don’t believe that Marotta should have to pay child support to the state. It wasn’t as he was having sex with the woman. Out of the goodness of his heart, he was willing to give his sperm to her so that she could have a child and donating it by artificial insemination is hardly what anyone could call a sex act.

Many years ago, two lesbian couples I knew approached me and asked me to have sex with one their partners so that they could have my baby. I refused for two reasons. The main one was that I didn’t want to have a child of mine that wasn’t actually living with me while the child grew up and the second reason was that although they said that they wouldn’t look to me for child support, I knew that the provincial authorities would if the two couples ever ended up living on welfare.

The State of Minnesota has similar laws regarding parentage and artificial insemination. Now, a Twin Cities attorney is lobbying state legislators to change the law, which, he says, has failed to keep up with the changing nature of families and fertility science. Minnesota's current law, he says, unfairly punishes single women and gay couples trying to start families and the donors who help them.

Minnesota also requires that a doctor oversee a sperm donation if the donor wants to be considered free of parental responsibilities. This applies even though physicians aren't necessarily needed in a world with $29.95 home insemination kits readily available.

The state’s position that a doctor should supervise the insemination so that the father who donated the sperm can be established is utter nonsense. I realize how important it is that the father is determined for medical reasons but surely if a man admits to being the father and his blood type is the same as his child, that should be sufficient.

Legal analysts generally agree that Kansas is following the law but that it is based on 40-year-old assumptions about parenting that were made before artificial insemination became commonplace. Those presumptions were based on the belief that the man was having sex with the woman in order to donate his sperm to her so that she could have a child.

Minnesota's statute has become obsolete in several ways. In addition to requiring a doctor's oversight for a sperm donor to be absolved of parental responsibilities, the sperm must be donated to a married woman with the consent of the husband and wife. This rules out sperm being donated to lesbian couples. Something is very wrong in this kind of law.

The sure way for lesbian couples to get around that provision in Minnesota is to go through a formal adoption process in which donors relinquish parental rights. Adoptions, however, can cost thousands in legal fees. It is a cruel form of irony when the state forces lesbian partners or single women to spend $2,500 for an adoption whereas a married couple spends no money other than a visit to a doctor’s office.

I believe that sperm donors who donate their sperm privately and do it for no fee should not be personally held liable for any financial liability. However, I also believe that they and the mother should register their names with the government so that if a medical need arises with respect to the child, the fathers can be located.