Sperm donor forced to pay child support

Sperm donor William Marotta has been forced to pay child support by the Kansas Department for Children and Families to a lesbian couple who found him via a Craigslist ad which the couple had placed asking for a sperm donor.

Angela Bauer, 40, and her partner Jennifer Schreiner, 34, placed the ad on Craigslist three years ago looking for a donor. William Marotta answered the ad and was selected by the couple as their sperm donor.

Marotta provided his sperm to them which the couple used for artificial insemination on Schreiner. Marotta willingly gave up all parental rights including financial duties for the child upon agreeing to be the couple’s sperm donor, as he did not wish to be the child’s father. He only wanted to help the couple by providing his sperm and nothing more.

When Bauer and Schreiner, the 34-year-old birth mother, reached a deal with Marotta that did not include any payment for his sperm donation, he signed a written agreement that relinquished all parental rights and held him harmless “for any child support payments demanded of him by any other person or entity, public or private … regardless of the circumstances or said demand,” it said.

Recently the Kansas Department for Children and Families ordered Marotta to pay support for the three-year-old girl that was born after Bauer and Schreiner requested welfare earlier this year.

The state is said to have forced the women to reveal Mr Marotta’s identity after pressuring them to reveal who the biological father of the child was. The state declared the contract relinquishing him of financial responsibility void because the insemination was not performed by a certified doctor.

The couple said they tried to protect Marotta’s identity, but Kansas officials told them they would be unable to receive health care for their daughter if they did not reveal the name of the biological father. Feeling pressured and afraid, the couple finally gave Kansas officials Marotta’s name as the biological father to their child. The state then argued in court papers that because the insemination wasn’t performed by a licensed physician, the contract, in which he signed away his parental rights and financial responsibility towards the child, was null and void.

Bauer and Schreiner, who have now separated since this whole ordeal began in 2010, plan to help Marotta fight the state’s decision to force him to pay child support. The couple said they are ‘forever grateful’ for the child he has given their family.

This was a wonderful opportunity with a guy with an admirable, giving character who wanted nothing more than to help us have a child.

Ms Bauer, who is from Topeka, Kansas told ‘We’re kind of at a loss. We are going to support him in whatever action he wants to go forward with.’

This is just one chilling example of how state interference into the private lives of people can have serious damaging consequences. The state basically forced Bauer and Schreiner to divulge information that was assumed to be safe and confidential, by threatening the couple.

But what if the couple did not know the identity of their donor? Would the state have refused medical coverage for their child then? What if they were a heterosexual couple? Would that have made any difference in the state’s decision? I tend to think that it would have been a much different situation had the couple not been a lesbian couple.

Now that Mr Marotta has been forced to pay child support by the state, for a child he had given up all parental rights to, and did not want to be a parent to, it sets a scary precedent for other sperm donors who have donated sperm in good faith and assuming that having an agreement in place that relinquishes them of all parental rights and financial responsibility. Unless the woman sees a licenced physician in order to be artificially inseminated, the donor could now be on the hook for child support should the woman fall on hard times and require support from the state.

What this means is that no man is now safe when donating sperm. Many sperm banks will ship sperm directly to private homes where women take it upon themselves to do at-home insemination. And since no licenced physician is used, the sperm donor could be held financially responsible for the child born of his sperm if the woman, at any time, needs to seek state financial assistance.

Sperm donors who donate through a sperm bank are usually protected by state parenting shield laws. But in less straight-forward cases, such as this one, courts have differed on whether the men should pay up or not.

The child’s birth certificate does not include her biological father’s name, and Marotta has never had any contact with the child. Yet the state has declared him as a father and forced him to pay for the child regardless of the contract he had entered into upon donating his sperm to the couple.

A Massachusetts court ruled, in 2012, that a Nigerian immigrant had to pay child support for twins who were conceived through artificial insemination a year after he and his wife had separated, the Patriot Ledger reported.

In Vermont, according to NBC News, a man who donated sperm to a female friend was ordered to pay child support because he was said to have maintained a relationship with the children born from his sperm.

And in Washington state, the Court of Appeals ruled in 2004 that a sperm donor cannot be required to pay child support, unless he and the mother have signed an explicit contract. And in Texas, an appeals court ruled in favor of a former policeman who had donated sperm to a woman he had previously known. He had been forced to pay thousands of dollars in child support, for twins born from his sperm, until the court finally ruled in his favor.

When the lawsuit had been originally filed in 2008, Mr Marotta was quoted as saying: “I was totally blown away. I was already married and had moved on with my life.”

  • dhanu

    Sad but hopefully this incident would make other people think before they decide to be donors. Also goes on to prove that legal contracts mean nothing if another judge doesn’t like them. What does a certified physician has to do with the validity of the said contract? Lol any excuse will do.

    The man doesn’t want to pay, the other party doesn’t want to get paid from him, and still the state has invented a ridiculous excuse to make him pay! Not sure if I laugh at this or be sad.

    Anyway, in this particular case, if the man loses the case, the couple can always send him his money back and try to find some kind of job. But it does set a dangerous precedent for all the donors, including the past ones who were hitherto considering themselves safe.

  • bowspearer

    Is anyone genuinely shocked by this? I mean we’re talking about Kansas- one of at least 5 US states that make child sex victims as young as 12 pay child support to female pedophiles when a child rape results in a child. If child protection laws can’t even protect child rape victims from the Family Courts, then why would any laws that in comparison, are far more secondary to society.

    • yinyangbalance

      I’m actually questioning the whole sperm donor and egg donor morality and legality. What right do you have to give up the right to your child? I believe we are all responsible for our offspring no matter what rationalization we try to put in place of that responsibility. I think everyone in this case was kidding themselves, including sperm donors in general. How many sperm donor children grow up and go looking for their dads? They have rights to their records, so its stupid (I think) to expect that once you shoot your load you are no longer responsible. But just for kicks, I think the court should humor the lesbian couple and charge the butch with the same financial responsibilities as the father until the child turns 18 no matter if she is with the mother or not. That should give some penis-envy women a dose of reality, they may just understand the burdens of being male gender. Right now they are just playing house.

      • Paul Elam
      • John A

        Parents that give children out for adoption too?

        The State wants to make 3 parents responsible for the child! They’re from the government and are here to help.

        • yinyangbalance

          No, the state is making two parents responsible not three, thats the problem. The state should humor the 3rd person (the lesbian wife that was not pregnant) and show her that choosing to take on the male gender role is not without consequences. But the female ‘parent’ that did not bare the child is being held unaccountable. In fact I believe the lesbian couple knew exactly what they were doing and knew exactly how the state would react, they are taking advantage of the system by presenting the birth mother as a single mother to get benefits but it backfired on the sperm donor. In the end the lesbian couple still succeeded in taking advantage of someone.

          And about adoption, I don’t care how you rationalize it, you are still the biological parent of your children. If you made arrangements with someone to take care of the child without you then that arrangement should be maintained, but the child will still long for you and miss you as the parent no matter what they say pretend to be true. Many adopted children seek out their biological parents or long for them, that shouldn’t be denied or ignored, I think they have a right to seek them out. But that doesnt mean that the adopted parents can walk away from the responsibilities they have taken on. Then again I think the state has more right to take away those responsibilities from adopted parents when they are not serving the child as promised as opposed to if they were the biological parents.

          As a father, I don’t care who you are, be it the state or a lawyer, an officer of the law, or if you are the mother or whomever, NO ONE has the right to take away my children’s access to me. If an officer tried taking my kid from me I would beat him/her down and stand my ground. You will have to take my children away from me over my dead body. And if you take my sperm without my consent, I should have the right to charge you with RAPE.

      • Poester99

        Better have that packet of hot sauce for the condoms if you’re well off.

      • Rick Westlake

        More to the point, yinyangbalance –

        What right do ‘you’ have to my baby-batter?

        Whether ‘you’ are a lesbian couple who want to play house with a real-live baby, a heartbroken couple whose would-be daddy can’t produce viable sperm, or a gold-digger who saved my condom for her turkey-baster.

        I agree, a man should take care of his ejaculate responsibly. For me, that means pouring bleach into the condom before tying off the end and throwing it away.

        (Habanero sauce may violate the TOS here, Poester.)

      • napocapo69

        Dear one, if you only knew how many times I shot my load in the bathroom, without feeling guilty…

        But now I know I was wrong. At that time I was too young to realize my responsibilities…

        Anyway, I have to admit I feel no compassion for Marotta…I do not know why …. 😉

        • yinyangbalance

          Hey now, shooting your load into a toilet or a condom is responsible. Putting your sperm out for anyone and everyone to have access to it is (I believe) irresponsible. I dont think you’d be ok knowing that you MIGHT have a son or daughter is out there somewhere, god knows what hell they might be going through, and denied the right to know you as their father. I also think that anyone that interrupts your decision to shoot your load in the toilet or condom destined to be thrown away is committing a form of RAPE. Women that poke holes in condoms to get pregnant should be charged with RAPE and men should be given the same choices women are given when conceiving a child out of rape.

          There are two sides to this which I agree to and disagree to.

          1. The issue of “Fairness” where women have the ‘right’ dust their hands off and relinquish their responsibilities to mother their children either through adoption or abortion at will… should also have the right essentially do such things regarding fatherhood responsibilities to their offspring at will simply because those rights should not be exclusive to women. That would be “FAIR” in essence that if women can relinquish responsibility men should be able too.

          2. Is it FAIR to anyone, especially children, to be denied the right to live (abortion) or to be denied the right to have access to their biological parents? Does anyone have the right to basterdize a child on purpose? If denying children’s rights to their biological parents is not FAIR to children, then issue#1 (rights of parents to relinquish rights in one way or another) is trampling on the rights of children. But if issue#2 doesnt matter (essentially eff the children’s rights) then issue#1 is ok.

          These two points are what leads to my impasse because I think women are enjoying rights that men are not (relinquishing parental responsibility at will) which should be extended to men as well, I agree to that on pure principle of fairness but those very rights I believe are trampling on the rights of children as children.

          Therefore I am torn.

          That said, I am against abortion because of #2 except in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother’s life is in danger because of the pregnancy. I firmly believe (and not for religious purposes but on moral grounds) that abortion is wrong when it is a ‘life style’ choice, especially since the father is not required to be included in a woman’s decision/choice to abort. Do men not have rights to their unborn children’s lives too? Feminism says no because a woman’s body trumps everyone’s rights including children’s. I disagree with that.

          That said, should the conversation be about extending the exclusive rights of women(no matter if those rights are moral or immoral) to men? Or should we talk about how some of those exclusive women’s rights are immoral?

          • napocapo69

            I’ll try to be serious about a topic that still makes me laugh…here we go…

            A father becomes a father the time he says “I WANT TO BE A FATHER”.
            In other terms, donating sperm, “in vitro”, in condom, in vagina, does not imply accepting to be a father, unless explicitely stated. His body, his choice.

            Assuming that sperm is the binding between a child and a father, a father and his money…, it is ridicolous. Realizing that this assumption is the one that drives the family law in western society, it is just the evidence of the darkness in which we fell thanks to the mysandric rethoric of feminism.

            That said, I have no compassion for Marotta or anyone that “sells” or give for free the sperm …that’s it. 😉

      • JJ

        What it is really about is contract law over the sanctity of
        anything else. I think most people are looking at this from the wrong angle.

        People need to get it in their head that FEMINISM IS THE SYMPTOM, NOT THE SOURCE! Feminism is used by the state to increase its grip over individual citizens lives! The reason this form of contract is not honored by the state collection agencies is because honoring contract law has never been their function; gaining federal tax matching funds is. This is why you see so much BS in family courts; because they desire to break up the family, and any contract they will deprive the state access to all of the money as a form of tax.

        The state needs to be able to increase its hold on power over individuals, simultaneously denying the citizens need to maintain his/her personal liberty. Family Court, through feminist ideology, is the scapegoat it has successfully used to further this agenda in all aspects of its citizens lives. Patriot Act, foreign wars, Social Security, usury (credit scams) through the banks on predatory loans able to keep government authority in check while they screw an individual and their family out of house and home.

        The kids are merely the means to an end; nothing more!

        The end that justifies all means to the state, including the death of numerous foster kids and family units as a whole nationwide is “federal matching funds.”

        From VAWA, Anti-Rape shield law, child support (social security’s real purpose), private prison systems, consumer economy; all done through promising personal security to women through state intervention.

        This is one of many ways to take feminism down; by not concentrating on the symptom, feminism; and taking down the source which is federal tax greed. There are some tin foil theories out there; and many ,maybe right, but that is not my point.

        By forcing this state to honor contract law, and deny its addiction to fiat dollars; we can get what we want!

        • yinyangbalance

          JJ I couldn’t have said that better myself. There is also one angle that is seldomly talked about. Feminism provides ripe males for the empire’s army down the line by breaking up the family and taking the father’s role of provider. Around the same time of “Second Wave Feminism” the US realized how inneffective Conscription is, just like physical slavery is less effective than debt slavery, so is the draft in the face of aimless low-self-esteem lost adult males whom are given the forced choice to join or be left to suffer in Feminist society. “Be all you can be”. Since the move from conscription to an all ‘voluntary’ army, our military size has quadrupled even though our youth population is continuing to shrink as the baby boomer generation moved into retirement. It is the most successful military campaign of the 20’th and 21’st century. How is it that we are second in military size to CHINA yet 1/10th their population? And this is just in the last 10 years. I’ll tell you how, the new age man is the byproduct of Feminism’s rise in the 70’s and 80’s as well as today’s on going war on men. All of this “anti-man crusade” marginalizes men to the fringes of society where the military is actively recruiting. Those that fail to be recruited will be swept up by the prison system one way or another, be it crimes committed out of desperation or blatant false allegations against him.

          • JJ

            I talk about that angle alot actually, as I am prior military.

            I also got downsized. So like the construction workers, I am use to work my butt off on the hard stuff while the women get to direct traffic (read hold signs and stand there), and clean up (read get paid the same for sweeping up and cleaning up as much or less than I do after I carried everything). Then unceremoniously dropped, while they are kept on staff for tax breaks.

            I also noticed that only white men in my out processing center were being downsized, also I noticed that most minorities and women were getting heavily advanced. Even though I usually had better grades on exams? Ialso noticed at the out processing center that during the week I was there, twenty women were also coming and going. To a woman; pregnant, unit deployed or deploying; and they were getting a medical discharge with “honorable” circumstances! I guess once they got the schools and benefits package; it was time to get the child support check, space a travel in the reserves, and go to school for free; all on the tax payer dime!

            If only I could be so “oppressed.”

            I guess I had less jobs to compete for with more competition?

            Also, I find it interesting that I hear how bad women in the military have it. Yet they want to see more combat? I don’t think so; contrary to what is usually put to the public, the military obituaries are 85% white and male.

            So not only are men like me dying more, we are getting paid the same, advanced less; and kicked out early. I also struggle to find work as civilian employers struggle to translate my skill set which is impressive, but how do they know?

            I learned to overcome and adapt, and that is what I have done; yet it is still wrong. But rather than get mad, or worse even; I intend on waiting them out and improving my skill set.

            You see, for those where times are tough and they still succeed; they are better prepared for what lies ahead. Those being politically advanced and sheltered will whine and cry; but I am fresh out of sympathy!

  • yinyangbalance

    I’m a bit at an impasse on this. There are so many things wrong with this too. I followed these cases long before I knew about AVFM. Initially I was completely against recognizing the biological father in THESE cases because he did not want to be recognized and the lesbian couple had a Butch Wife whom I think should be held responsible in every shape and form as the father because thats the role she wanted but obviously only wanted the benefits not the burden. Then again, looking at it on a different perspective, I don’t recognize that any female has the right to call herself a father because that is a biological right of the male biology, just as I believe mother is a biological right of women. What I do see is two females playing house that were completely financially irresponsible, and a man that was completely “dumb’ for trusting two strangers on craigslist with his sperm, then deliberately getting one pregnant when and no one could really afford it. In general I also disagree with the conceivment since its not like the child was a result of their natural consumation and lesbian love making because thats impossible. If it happens with straight couples, thats completely understandable since it comes with the territory . But if anyone is poor and can’t afford a child, and they need to deviate from conventional methods to conceive, and make a concious effort to do so, that is wrong no matter if you are straight or gay. The whole process was a deliberate deviation from the natural process of conceiving a child. The biological father, in my opinion should also be ashamed for he was irresponsible with his sperm, thats my opinion, but I dont know if he should be held financially responsible for that. He did not make that child out of the process of making love to the mother….it was not a natural result, it was completely artificial and didn’t satisfy any understandable biological need to breed, but instead was a deliberate deviation from norms. I don’t think the state should be involved at all with this, if anything they need to hold the “female father” accountable and recognize that the lesbian relationship is taking advantage of the system, no doubt they presented the mother as a “single mother” to get benefits. Then again, if they recognize the other Lesbian as responsible for the child over the biological father, then it goes against my beliefs around fatherhood and motherhood, especially non-biological ones.

    I dont really know what to do with this. The only thing I can say is SHAME on both parties.

    • Sting Chameleon

      You keep rambling about what’s ‘natural’, WHO THE FUCK CARES about what’s ‘natural’ nowadays? The very laptop you’re using to post your rant is a technological device made from materials that are not found in nature, if you’re arguing for your beliefs on how motherhood or fatherhood ‘should be’, don’t fall for the naturalistic fallacy.

  • JFinn

    Misandry: The systemic oppression and cultural hatred of men and boys.

    That may be a redundant definition for the west. In a democratic society with a free economy and a free press, any widespread hatred is automatically systemic. Voters, consumers, and especially consumers of media wield a lot of power.

    Now, try to find a single case where a surrogate woman was ordered to pay child support. You know what you’ll find? That’s right. You’ll only find cases where SURROGATES sued for sole custody AND for child support AND won.

    • yinyangbalance

      YES, thank you for that flip in roles. You are totally right. I didn’t even think about Surrogates.

  • HieronymusBraintree

    Wooly, how do you find this stuff?

    • scatmaster

      Front page news in Canada and the msm is just lapping it up. Gloating all the way.

    • Bev

      An article on this turned up in an OZ newspaper. This stuff make news around the world.

    • The Wooly Bumblebee

      I have a sixth sense 😉

  • Kimski

    It doesn’t matter if not all women are like that, when you effectively sign over your rights to a woman in any legal transactions or otherwise, because the state will make sure that they’re all exactly like that.

    Hopefully more men will start waking up to this fact, because the price and consequences of dealing with women are rapidly becoming way too high and obscure, with no way to negotiate the terms and no way out.

    • Mr. J

      Well, they haven’t woken up yet..Most are still too obsessed with other men who play “games” to wake up to anything.

    • Steve_85

      NAWALT? No they aren’t. But my safety and future depends on me assuming that they are until they are proven not to be… and even then, they still can be the second they decide they want to.

      Consider a woman who is “like that” as an agent, and this quote from the Matrix makes perfect sense, its almost scary:

      “That means that anyone we haven’t unplugged is potentially an agent. Inside the Matrix, they are everyone and they are no one. We survived by hiding from them, by running from them. But they are the gatekeepers. They are guarding all the doors. They are holding all the keys, which means that sooner or later, someone is going to have to fight them.”

  • Skeptic

    WBB – Thank you for a very thoughtful article.

    Kimski – “It doesn’t matter if not all women are like that, when you effectively sign over your rights to a woman in any legal transactions or otherwise, because the state will make sure that they’re all exactly like that.”

  • rake

    Aaand once again, no good deed goes unpunished…

  • donzaloog

    Looks to me like this is just the state trying to make things difficult for this lesbian couple. It’s often the strategy of certain groups that are forced to give people rights. Make the system so arduous and frustrating that they’ll give up all together.

    • Bev

      Not so.
      an unmarried straight couple would find itself in the same boat as Bauer and Schreiner, all other facts of the case held constant, said Stephanie Mott, state chair of the Kansas Equality Coalition.

    • Paul Elam

      Holy shit, are you serious? Not even the mainstream media covering this story was willing to make that kind of stretch to ignore what was happening to the man in favor of another demographic, and that is saying tons.

  • TigerMan

    What has always bothered me about sperm donations being used to bring children into this world is the fact that society has puts the perceived needs of childless couples before that of the childs. In other words insemination via sperm donation invariably involves denying a child of at least one of it’s bio parents from being a custodial parent.
    If couples who cannot have children by any other means want children that bad then there are more than enough children available for adoption to fulfil that need.
    I know this is not a very popular view these days but the official sanctioning of depriving children of the caring custody of at least one bio parent (usually the father go figure!) for appeasing the desire of adults in my mind is putting the cart before the horse.
    If this case helps to deter many men from donating in future I see at least that aspect of it as a good thing.

  • Coriolanus

    On the plus side, the MRM has three new recruits.

    • Kimski

      Yeah, and we’ve got Ellen “Ripley” Pizzey, too.


      • TigerMan

        Oh man that’s funny!! ROFL :)

        • Kimski

          Well, should’ve been Erin, ofc.

          Haste makes waste.

    • Bev

      More than that every story like this chips away at the mindset of blue pillers.

  • Redfield

    Australia has similar laws to Kansas, when couples divorce or unmarried couples with children seperate they can draw up a legal agreement excluding the payment of child support by either party … But once one goes on welfare that contract becomes null and void, the working parent coughs up …. Is it not the same in the U.S.?
    What would have saved this man a ton of grief would be a course on male rights in his last year of high school highlighting his rights as a male in Western society, owing to the subject matter it would be quite a short course:)
    Seriously, men and boys have a need to know …
    The other side of this could be the fact that for weight to cost ratio, sperm can be the most costly and toxic substance known to (man)kind and should never be deployed into a plastic cup ….

    • Mr. J

      HAH!!!….public “high” schools can’t even be bothered to teach basic economics……..

  • Stu

    Do not donate sperm, to anyone under any circumstances, not even a sperm bank. They can change the laws, and will, when it is demanded by women, and it doesn’t matter how ridiculous the demands, they will get them through eventually. Just don’t let anybody have your sperm for making babies, at all…..nobody.

    • Steve_85

      This. So many times this.

      I remember a court case (does anyone have the link saved?) where a woman was giving a man a gobby, and finished as she started (in her mouth). She then used this sperm to impregnate herself and claimed “child support” from the man in question.

      The courts decided that his sperm was a ‘gift’ and that hew as now liable.

      The second the sperm leaves your body, any ownership to it you had is gone, except when it comes back to bite you in the dick. It can, will, and HAS been used to extract resources from an unwilling man who had no reasonable way to expect that a child may result from an encounter.

      Condoms aren’t enough anymore. Use multiple, redundant contraception techniq…. oh wait…

  • JGteMolder

    Step 1: Complete!

    Step 2: Wait for the inevitable sperm bank donor to get the same.

    Step 3: AvfM gets the money together to sue the sperm bank for not giving proper legal warning, and/or not sending legal notice to all already donated sperm donors, giving them the option to opt out under these circumstances.

    Step 4: Sperm bank is forced to pay the child support to the donor, and gives everyone that legal notice.

    Step 5: No more sperm banks or donors! Give proper value back to a man’s sperm and presence! Muahahahaha!

    Seriously, just how vile and stupid do you have to be to do this as the state? Don’t they realize this means the end for lesbians to ever get their own children ever again? I wonder how long it takes before Lesbians en masse deliver a class-action suit to the state… or smash court and state buildings to pieces.

  • keyster

    No Problemo…BUT, I’m going to insist the State also grant me visitation rights of every other weekend and two weeks each summer with my daughter – where I will subject her to Tea Party rallies, Christianity, Faith in the Family and radical extremist hate-filled ideas from the CATO Insititute and Reason Magazine.

    • Paul Elam


  • Rick Westlake

    Well, under the legal principle of mentula rea …

    The man is always to blame, no matter what.

    Possession of a penis is nine-tenths of the prosecution’s case, no matter how flaccid, no matter whether or not there are balls to go with it.

    (Hat tip to W.F. Price of The Spearhead for a perfect quasi-legal term for the celebrated Pussy Pass!)

  • Brian_Unfiltered

    It’s funny how the state and people seeking money come to us.

  • TheMalesOfGames

    I signed up just to comment on this article. I’ve been following the site for a long time but this piece was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

    I don’t understand how something like this could even come about. I’m not familiar with how child support systems work in the US, so I can only assume that the Kansas Department for Children and Families saw that the lesbian couple weren’t receiving child support and assumed something was going WRONG rather than something was going RIGHT. Maybe someone in the know will be able to explain that to me. Something I don’t think can be explained, however, is why the state felt the need to intrude on what was a fine agreement between the couple and their donor. Do they earn a percentage from each child support payment?

    By the way, Wooly Bumblebee, correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t something similar happen with the state forcing your ex-husband to pay you child support too? Sorry if I’m mistaken.

    • The Wooly Bumblebee

      Yep. We are working on having him sign over his parental rights because he does not want to be a father to my daughter, and I have no issue with that. In fact I was the one who put forth the idea that he do so to avoid having to pay for a child he does not want to have any part of. The courts are not quick when dealing with legal paternal surrender, but it will get done. I do not want to make him pay for a child he never wanted.

  • Jay

    Governments interfering in the lives of innocent men and women is feminist tyranny at work. Check out the latest happenings in the UK:

    They get away with it my making up statistics and grossly exaggerating problems with sex work.

  • andybob

    “The couple said they tried to protect Marotta’s identity…”

    Well, they should have bloody well tried harder. How exactly were they ‘forced’ to divulge his name. Do Kansas officials ram bamboo under fingernails?

    I’m sure their show of regret was as moving as it was convincing. So glad they are “forever grateful” to Mr Marotta. They now have an opportunity to demonstrate that gratitude by returning every last cent of whatever amount he is forced to pay them.

    I agree with Mr Yinyangbalance’s assertion that the lesbian couple knew what they were doing all along and “succeeded in taking advantage of someone.” Be sure of this – these grifters aren’t done with him yet. Not by a long shot. Those braces won’t pay for themselves, neither will that wedding.

    In my final year at university in 1987, I went to meet my flatmates at the bar. I was told they were downstairs (still carrying their schooners of Coopers) in a lecture theatre getting signed up for some group called Future Fathers that was canvassing for sperm donors (at a university – subtle). I made a beeline and dragged all five of them out by the scruffs of their necks. I told them that they were effin idiots for even thinking about giving away their sperm to total strangers. They didn’t even think about any of the potential consequences.

    I managed to save my mates, but I often wonder about the other drunk university students that Future Fathers milked. How many of them have had unexpected visits from erstwhile progeny? How many babies can one batch of sperm produce – one, two, ten, fifty? Are any of those presumably sobered–up men now financially responsible for all of them?

    Hopefully, the publicity given to cases like this will act as a warning to do-gooding men to stop making themselves vulnerable in this way. If they still feel compelled to do some bored and unfulfilled lesbians a good turn, they could educate them about men’s rights issues, and invite them on poster runs.

    • TheMalesOfGames

      I normally agree with your posts, andybob, but you’re casting blame on the wrong people. I have nothing but respect for Bauer and Schreiner for supporting Marotta. Since they had their own agreement with Marotta, how would they know that the state would disregard it in order to pursue an agenda of their own? Frankly, since the state was threatening their daughter’s healthcare over the sperm donor’s identity, I’d have done the same thing. That’s how they were forced to divulge his name. With a lack of any other options, can you honestly say you wouldn’t have for your child?

      It’s fine to be angry but you shouldn’t be directing that anger at two of Marotta’s only supporters. To say “these grifters aren’t done with him yet” just comes off as paranoid and I’d be surprised if they weren’t paying Marotta back.

      • andybob

        These women had a moral obligation to protect Mr Marotta from the state because they made a promise to him. They didn’t keep it. Shame on them.

        You can try and defend, excuse, rationalize and justify their betrayal from here until doomsday. Those women did the wrong thing by that man. They should have supported him with their actions, not just their words – talk is cheap.

        The healthcare of their daughter is irrelevant to the discussion. It was their problem to solve, not his, and certainly not mine. I’m tired of women shirking their responsibilities and then shedding crocodile tears. This pair need to borrow some of Ms GWW’s big girl’s pants.

        Sorry, but I’m all out of passes.

        • Paul Elam

          And just like that, AB drops the evil hammer of truth, this time saving me. I had the pass issued. Yikes!!

          I also note that if either of these women is sincere about their deal, whatever the state passes to them can quickly be refunded to the victim.

        • Stu

          Exactly, they should have kept their word and just said………I AM NOT TELLING YOU when the state demanded to know who the father was.

          Tell me ladies, did the contract say…….I promise not to extract money from the donor, unless I change my mind……or….unless the state tells me too. If it had of said that, this man wouldn’t have given you his sperm……you wouldn’t have gotten what you wanted, and he wouldn’t be getting his money stolen.

          Wake up men…….even if you are a 12yo boy and are raped by your teacher……they will make you pay for the child. Lesson, no deal you make with a women on anything will be legally enforced if it disadvantages either the woman, or the state in the future. Get it through you head.

          Same for prenups……not worth toilet paper. They are little more then another means to extract more money from men…….for very expensive toilet paper for a family court judge to wipe his arse on. They can bring a law in tomorrow that renders your prenup null and void. Forget deals…..contracts…..etc…..the MRM is the only answer. You can not make deals with the devil

        • TheMalesOfGames

          Andybob, the healthcare of their daughter has everything to do with the discussion. What you’re asking of them is for them to risk their own daughter’s health in order to protect a man’s identity. Again, it’s the state’s fault for being so vile to dangle that over their heads but no rational parent would sacrifice the well-being of their child to protect someone’s identity.

          And they are supporting him with their actions. They’re helping him fight the state’s demand to pay them child support. If they were doing as you said, they would just sit back and let Marotta’s money flow in. You’re acting like they demanded the money themselves when they didn’t and are continuing to refuse to accept it. That’s something to be commended, not looked at with suspicion and accusatory language.

  • Redfield

    The Australian government is constantly changing laws with sperm banks in this country ….
    There has been a drying up (as far as I know not due to global warming) of available sperm at these banks over the past 10 years … Interesting the term bank is used here, where you make a deposit and like the financial system, you end up being laced with a hundred different charges!!
    Like most of the posts I don’t care about the couple in this situation but the man …
    Now what this man may have inadvertently started is a price discovery mechanism for sperm and insemenation!
    If you factor in the payments he will have to make (child support) until the child is 18, indexation, further profeminist changes to child care in that time, he could be looking at anywhere betwee $140K and $300K during this period … also the fact that multiple births are a relatively common outcome with this technique, the cost to a man in a similar predicament would skyrocket!!
    Now if men took advantage of this, by supply and demand by factoring in all variables for the true price of sperm, lobbied other states to intro the same laws as Kansas, agree to take a 10 year moritorium on marriage, made it illegal to import sperm, got one of the big trading houses on Wall Street to start a market in “sperm futures” the sky could be the limit if we charge for this commodity. Guys we are quite literally sitting on a gold mine … :) seriously how do we get this started!! We could help this poor guy out with the profits, everyones happy …I am thinking the price could easily be $400K per pregnancy …

    • Stu

      Wont work. The more money you have, the more they will steal off you. I wouldn’t allow my sperm to be used to make a baby for a million dollars.

  • Jean Valjean

    The real story is not that the guy must pay support. That is mundane and old news. He didn’t follow the law and therefore the law doesn’t insulate him from liability.

    Let that be a lesson to him.

    The real story is how this lesbian couple made a baby and can’t support it so they turn to the state (as always) to get a free ride. Only the state has actually demanded that they know who the father is. That good.

    And the lesbians, the thankful and grateful lesbians who now have a baby thanks to the willing and generous man who masturbated into a cup for them (he didn’t even get laid!), are more than willing to rat him out to the state so they can get paid.

    All this falls under Briffault’s Law. He should’ve known better and it is my hope that some day all men will.

    • Steve_85

      Briffault’s Law appears indeed to be iron-clad. I’ve yet to see any situation that couldn’t be covered by it. Kind of sad really.

      • Sting Chameleon

        Briffault’s Law should be taught to boys as soon as they hit puberty, no questions asked.

  • JohnNewton

    “This is just one chilling example of how state interference into the private lives of people can have serious damaging consequences.”
    “Bauer and Schreiner requested welfare earlier this year”
    While the guy undoubtedly got unfairly screwed over, I feel a (very) slight tinge of discomfort faulting the govt. for being somewhat unwilling to throw taxpayer money around for once (although I’m sure it wouldn’t be hard to come up with more sinister potential reasons for their decision). Once you ask for taxpayer money to cover your expenses, it is no longer a simple matter of “the government sticking its nose in your business”.

    Of course, it all depends on the following:
    Was there any legal support/precedent for your ability to sign away the requirement that you pay child support, or did he just come to an agreement with the mother that -she- wouldn’t demand child support from him?

    As I’m sure we all realize, assuming their need for government assistance was real and immediate, there were only two options:
    1. The biological father pays even though he signed a contract with the mother where they agreed that he shouldn’t have to pay
    2. The taxpayers pay
    (3. We let the kid and possibly the mother starve to death in the gutter)

    Note that this post is not meant to defend the governments actions. I’m simply pointing out an aspect of this story that bothered me a bit.

    “Recently the Kansas Department for Children and Families ordered Marotta to pay support for the three-year-old girl that was born after Bauer and Schreiner requested welfare earlier this year.”
    Does this sentence seem slightly off to anybody else?

    • JGteMolder

      Our society lets men starve to death in the gutter all the time, what makes women so special? Besides which, why can’s she get a job – alright, maybe the economic crisis has a part to play here, but it feels to me she didn’t even bother trying to get one.

      But yes, the taxpayers pay, it’s rather the reason why the western world is in this economic crisis we’re all in, aren’t we?

      Now, I think a society should help those who genuinely need help. However, we hand money to so many people and bullshit who don’t need money who simply feel entitled to it, while we destroy those jobs and areas that may actually increase the value in our economies.

      • JohnNewton

        Would have replied sooner, but I kept getting errors.

        “Our society lets men starve to death in the gutter all the time, what makes women so special?”
        Nothing. In my opinion, society shouldn’t let anyone starve to death in the gutter, man or woman.

        “Besides which, why can’s she get a job – alright, maybe the economic crisis has a part to play here, but it feels to me she didn’t even bother trying to get one.”
        Well, I did say “assuming their need for government assistance was real and immediate”.

        “Now, I think a society should help those who genuinely need help. However, we hand money to so many people and bullshit who don’t need money who simply feel entitled to it, while we destroy those jobs and areas that may actually increase the value in our economies.”
        I agree completely.

  • Paul

    If it was a heterosexual couple then he’d be assumed to be the father and pay anyway. If he couldn’t then he’d go to jail.