- Obama military downsizing leaves U.S. too weak to counter global threats, panel finds
- Sen. Tom Coburn vows to slow down budget-busting bills ahead of recess
- Obama fantasizes about more executive power, signs new order on federal contractors
- Clintons call Klein, Halper, Kessler ‘a Hat Trick of despicable actors’: report
- Boehner accuses Obama of ‘legacy of lawlessness’
- Pro-marijuana group claims responsibility for Brooklyn Bridge flag swap
- Young adults shun Obamacare mostly due to cost: survey
- Stabbing attack on transgender girl, 15, was ‘bias motivated,’ police say
- LGBT adults still lean overwhelmingly toward Democratic Party
- Lawmakers rattled by Syria genocide horrors, call on Obama to act
Attorney for donor applauds high court decision
Question of the Day
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) - The Kansas Supreme Court has ordered a lower court to hold a hearing to determine if genetic testing of a sperm donor is in the best interest of the child he allegedly fathered.
The court’s decision followed a May ruling from Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi that ordered the sperm donor, William Marotta, to be tested to determine if he is the father of a now 4-year-old girl born to a couple after Marotta donated his sperm.
The Kansas Department for Children and Families has sought to have Marotta declared the father of the child born to Jennifer Schreiner in 2009. The state wants Marotta to be responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance the state provided, as well as future child support.
Marotta has said he contacted Schreiner and her partner at the time after seeing an ad they placed seeking a sperm donor and signed a contract waiving his parental rights and responsibilities.
The state sought genetic testing to determine Marotta’s paternity, and he sued to block it. Mattivi ordered the testing to take place without first conducting a “Ross hearing,” which would determine if genetic testing to determine biological paternity is in the child’s best interest.
The high court said in a ruling released Friday that Kansas law dictates that the best interests of a child must prevail in determining parental rights and obligations.
“Ross held that the shifting of parental roles from a presumed parent to a biological parent could be detrimental to the emotional and physical well-being of any child, thus necessitating a hearing to determine if the shifting is in the best interests of the child,” Chief Justice Lawton Nuss wrote in the majority opinion.
Marotta’s lawyer, Ben Swinnen, told The Topeka Capital-Journal (http://bit.ly/1kOxiJh ) he’s pleased with the high court’s ruling.
“It all turns on whether the state continues to take this kid hostage for its political agenda or we can use common sense,” Swinnen said. “She is in a family where she is growing up happily. Let’s not disturb that.”
Theresa Freed, spokeswoman for the Kansas Department for Children and Families, said in an emailed statement DCF “will respect the court’s order and comply with the ordered hearing.”
The hearing date hasn’t been scheduled.
Information from: The Topeka (Kan.) Capital-Journal, http://www.cjonline.com
TWT Video Picks
Both parties recognize the Democrats' scam
- Inside the Ring: Israel surprised by Hamas tunnel network
- CRUZ: A tale of two hospitals: One in Israel, one in Gaza
- Chicken pox outbreak puts illegal immigrant facility on lockdown
- Report: 40% of weapons sent to Afghanistan are unaccounted for
- Israel surprised by Hamas tunnel network
- Sarah Palin's online channel hits snag as Stephen Colbert buys similar URL
- 3 African leaders cancel trip to U.S. over Ebola outbreak; Obama still plans summit
- Feds accept boredom, lack of work as excuses for surfing porn on clock
- Catholic League slams Obama: 'Do Christian lives mean so little to you?'
- Obama military strategy too weak for future security, panel reports
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world