- Beretta leaves Maryland over gun laws, heads for Tennessee
- Neal Boortz defends Hillary Clinton for representing child rapist
- House task force to recommend National Guard on border, faster deportations
- Top federal judge uses pizza to explain complex Obamacare situation
- Obama, Biden overhaul job training programs
- Drought-plagued Californians turn to paint to keep lawns green
- ISIL now forcing Iraqi shopkeepers to veil mannequins in Mosul
- 11 parents of Nigeria’s abducted girls die
- Genetic mapping triggers new hope on schizophrenia
- Turkish P.M. Erdogan won’t speak to Obama, but he’ll take calls from Biden
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
The president could pay the full price for ignoring Congress
- IRS seeks help destroying another 3,200 computer hard drives
- D.C. appeals panel deals big blow to Obamacare subsidies
- Beretta moving to Tennessee over Maryland gun laws
- Gen. James Amos, Marine Corps commandant, slams Obama's handling of Iraq
- 'Straight White Guy Festival' supposedly set for Ohio park
- LYONS: Small-arms treaty, big Second Amendment threat
- Pentagon team dispatched to Ukraine amid crisis with Russia
- Obama family set to buy $4.25M desert home in California: report
- PRUDEN: A deadly enemy within exacerbating immigration crisis
- DEACE: How to go from civil rights icon to bigot in one quote
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq