Marotta v. Kansas
Lauren Bistany
University of New England
SUMMARY
The case of Marotta v Kansas involves a question of paternity and the right of a sperm donor. In 2009, William Marotta answered to an ad posted by a lesbian couple looking for a sperm donor. The three adult parties signed an agreement defining Marotta’s role. Marotta waived his rights to paternity in this contract. His involvement was agreed to cease after his sperm donation. However, four years later after couple had filed for child support from the state of Kansas. With this motion the state of Kansas tracked down Marotta, claiming that he was the father of the child conceived and in turn was responsible for paying child support. The state claimed that the …show more content…
All three of the adults involved in the child’s conception objected to the final judgment. The mother opposed Kansas Department of Children and Family Services motion on the grounds that she did not intend Marotta to be a father and that and further argued that “introducing a virtual stranger into the family unit would violate the right to family integrity.” The mother’s partner objected on grounds that recognition of Marotta as a parent would mean that she would be replaced, since a child cannot have three legal parents. Marotta objected to the judgement on the grounds that all parties had created an enforceable agreement that barred him as being recognized as a legal father.
The non-paternity rule, was adopted as part of a comprehensive parentage act in 1994 and based on a model act adopted by many other states, imposed clear requirements; functions to relieved the sperm donor of legal parent status if and only if the semen is provided to a licensed physician. The statutory requirements were not met in this case. The sperm donor could not avoid application of the paternity rule because he did not personally provide the semen to the
Lauren Bistany
University of New England
SUMMARY
The case of Marotta v Kansas involves a question of paternity and the right of a sperm donor. In 2009, William Marotta answered to an ad posted by a lesbian couple looking for a sperm donor. The three adult parties signed an agreement defining Marotta’s role. Marotta waived his rights to paternity in this contract. His involvement was agreed to cease after his sperm donation. However, four years later after couple had filed for child support from the state of Kansas. With this motion the state of Kansas tracked down Marotta, claiming that he was the father of the child conceived and in turn was responsible for paying child support. The state claimed that the …show more content…
All three of the adults involved in the child’s conception objected to the final judgment. The mother opposed Kansas Department of Children and Family Services motion on the grounds that she did not intend Marotta to be a father and that and further argued that “introducing a virtual stranger into the family unit would violate the right to family integrity.” The mother’s partner objected on grounds that recognition of Marotta as a parent would mean that she would be replaced, since a child cannot have three legal parents. Marotta objected to the judgement on the grounds that all parties had created an enforceable agreement that barred him as being recognized as a legal father.
The non-paternity rule, was adopted as part of a comprehensive parentage act in 1994 and based on a model act adopted by many other states, imposed clear requirements; functions to relieved the sperm donor of legal parent status if and only if the semen is provided to a licensed physician. The statutory requirements were not met in this case. The sperm donor could not avoid application of the paternity rule because he did not personally provide the semen to the