- Teacher who survived Sandy Hook has book deal
- Jury awards Jesse Ventura $1.8M in case vs. ‘American Sniper’ author Chris Kyle
- Government OKs Arab-owned company to operate U.S. cargo port
- Defense lawyer: McDonnell’s wife had ‘crush’ on CEO
- Chinese hackers stole ‘huge quantities’ of sensitive data on Israel’s Iron Dome
- House unveils bill to speed deportations of illegal immigrant children
- Californians protest middle school for hiring white man to teach cultural studies
- Killer’s sentencing overturned because mother couldn’t find seat in courtroom
- Hillary: ‘Dead broke’ comment was ‘inartful,’ but insists it was ‘accurate’
- Fla. mom arrested for allowing 7-year-old son to walk to park alone
Case shows assisted reproduction risks
Donor sued for child support
Question of the Day
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The case of a Kansas sperm donor being sued by the state for child support underscores a patchwork of laws that enable assisted reproduction in the U.S. but often lead to litigation and frustration among would-be parents.
Complex questions about parental responsibility resurfaced late last year, as Kansas officials went after a Topeka man who answered a Craigslist ad from a lesbian couple seeking a sperm donor. Because no doctor was involved in the artificial insemination, the state sought to hold William Marotta financially responsible for the child when the women split up and one of them sought public assistance. A hearing is set for April.
Many states haven’t updated their laws to accommodate contemporary family structures — gay couples, single women conceiving with donated sperm, or artificial inseminations performed without a doctor’s involvement. At-home insemination kits are inexpensive, and obtaining sperm from a friend, or even a donor met over the Internet, lets women avoid medical costs that insurance generally doesn’t cover.
But analysts say that as case law changes, families put themselves at risk by failing to seek legal advice.
The first wave of assisted reproduction laws were based on model legislation from 1973. These statutes typically call for, among other things, the involvement of a medical provider in order for a sperm donor to be freed of parental responsibility.
“They put a whole bunch of what they thought were reasonable restrictions on the process to encourage people to do it responsibly,” said Steven Snyder, a Minnesota family law attorney and chairman of an assisted reproduction committee for the American Bar Association. But, he said, the problem is that if people “don’t fall under the strict terms of the law, then the law doesn’t protect you.”
As a result, the doctor involvement requirement and other stipulations were dropped in 2000 when the model legislation, the Uniform Parentage Act, was updated. The new language has been enacted in nine states, including Alabama, Oklahoma and Texas. But Kansas’ law, enacted in 1994, was based on the earlier model.
Kansas isn’t alone in grappling with assisted reproduction issues. In Indiana, an appeals court ruled last week that a man who divorced his wife must pay child support for their son and daughter, even though the children were conceived by artificial insemination using sperm donated by another man. Another case in Indiana involved a man who was ordered in 2010 to pay child support for only one of the two children resulting from his sperm donations.
“The only way to avoid these situations is to change the law to catch up with the technology and what people are actually doing in assisted reproduction,” Mr. Snyder said.
Sperm donation and parental rights may sound like a relatively niche sector in the legal arena, but updating laws has been a challenge, and some like the rules as they are.
Kansas Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce said he doubts legislators will or should consider making changes.
“It tells everybody don’t do stupid things on Craigslist. It’s kind of common sense,” said Mr. Bruce, a Republican. “If you’re going to create another life, even if it’s a good intention, that’s a heck of a responsibility, and it’s one that precedes any sort of state action.”
In the 2010 Indiana case, a woman who used a friend’s sperm to conceive two children sought public assistance after she and her lesbian partner separated. County officials wanted to collect child support from the donor.
A state appeals court ultimately ruled that an agreement entered into before the first child’s birth freed the donor from financial responsibility for that child. But the donor was found to be financially responsible for the second child because the agreement didn’t cover subsequent children.
“It is definitely evolving and these kinds of cases are really cutting edge,” said Sean Lemieux, an Indianapolis attorney who also represented the sperm donor. “It is a risky thing and this is not the place to save your money upfront and get an office form off the Internet.”
TWT Video Picks
- Boehner rules out impeachment: 'Scam started by Democrats'
- Federal judge grants 90-day stay in D.C. gun case
- GOP Senate candidate: Obama needs to visit Central America
- Obama thanks Muslims for 'building the very fabric of our nation'
- Smugglers, rainstorm combine to poke holes in border fence
- California's Jerry Brown cites God, 'religious call' to embrace illegals
- D.C. seeks to stay judge's order allowing gun owners to carry in public
- Kerry's credibility questioned as fighting in Gaza rages
- Hillary Clinton: Forget Obama, George W. Bush made her 'proud to be an American'
- Appeals court upholds Obamacare tax as constitutional
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world