Follow breaking news @lgbtqnation
Kansas

Kan. judge rules lesbian couple’s sperm donor owes child support

Declares him the child's father so he can be held responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance the state provided.
Thursday, January 23, 2014

TOPEKA, Kan. — A man who provided sperm to a lesbian couple in response to an online ad is the father of a child born to one of the women and must pay child support, a Kansas judge ruled Wednesday.

William Marotta

William Marotta

Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, in this undated photo via MySpace.

Jennifer Schreiner (right) and her former partner Angela Bauer, in an undated photo via MySpace.

Topeka resident William Marotta had argued that he had waived his parental rights and didn’t intend to be a father. Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi rejected that claim, saying the parties didn’t involve a licensed physician in the artificial insemination process and thus Marotta didn’t qualify as a sperm donor, the Topeka Capital-Journal reported.

“In this case, quite simply, the parties failed to perform to statutory requirement of the Kansas Parentage Act in not enlisting a licensed physician at some point in the artificial insemination process, and the parties’ self-designation of (Marotta) as a sperm donor is insufficient to relieve (Marotta) of parental right and responsibilities to the child,” Mattivi wrote.

The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in October 2012 seeking to have Marotta declared the father of a child born to Jennifer Schreiner in 2009.

The state was seeking to have Marotta declared the child’s father so he can be held responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance the state provided, as well as future child support.

Marotta opposed that action, saying he had contacted Schreiner and her partner at the time, Angela Bauer, in response to an ad they placed on Craigslist seeking a sperm donor. He said he signed a contract waiving his parental rights and responsibilities.

Attorneys for the state contended the contract was moot because the parties didn’t follow a 1994 Kansas law requiring a licensed physician to perform the artificial insemination when donors were involved.

During oral arguments at a hearing in October, Timothy Keck, co-lead counsel for the state, said the case focused on child support. Marotta’s attorney, Benoit Swinnen, cited several court rulings he said support the argument that Marotta is legally a sperm donor and not required to pay child support.

Swinnen also argued that the Kansas statute doesn’t specifically require the artificial insemination to be carried out by a physician.

Court documents show Schreiner indicated she didn’t know the name of the donor or “have any information” about him in her application for child support. However, a sperm donor contract between Marotta and the couple includes his name, and the agency noted the couple talked about their appreciation for him in an interview with The Capital-Journal.

A filing Wednesday by the DCF argues the sperm donor contract overlooks “the well-established law in this state that a person cannot contract away his or her obligations to support their child.”

The right for support belongs to the child, not the parents, the filing says.

The agency said it also received different versions of the donor contract from Marotta and Schreiner, suggesting that the document “may be invalid on its face.”

“We stand by that contract,” Swinnen said. “The insinuation is offensive, and we are responding vigorously to that. We stand by our story. There was no personal relationship whatsoever between my client and the mother, or the partner of the mother, or the child. Anything the state insinuates is vilifying my client, and I will address it.”

© 2014, Associated Press, All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Share this article with your friends and followers:

Archives: , , , ,

Filed under: Kansas, [ Trending ]

437 more reader comments:

  1. Wait…what?

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:38pm
  2. this country is f-ing nuts!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:39pm
  3. That’s dumb

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:39pm
  4. Ya, that was all over our news cast last night. Sad thing is he tried to help and be nice. But the other sad this is he SHOULD have covered his own ass too. Horrible judgment tho.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:39pm
  5. Uhhh…

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:39pm
  6. Absurd. I hurts homosexual couples down the road wanting artificial insemination. Have any heterosexual couples been slammed with this?

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:39pm
  7. Not really. It was absolutely piss-poor judgement on behalf of the male if they didn't seek experienced counsel before enacting any such contract. FIRST rule of surrogacy/donorship. Florida is another state that's notorious for these such laws.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:48pm
  8. so wrong

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:39pm
  9. if he owes child support then he has parental rights/custody

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:39pm
  10. He signed those rights away. I don't know how it works every where, but where I live men still owe child support when they've signed rights away. And by signing rights away, you do not get parental rights/custody/visitation. He may be able to go to court to get them back over this fiasco, but I doubt he will otherwise have them.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:47pm
  11. double standard much?

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:48pm
  12. "Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi rejected that claim, saying the parties didn’t involve a licensed physician in the artificial insemination process and thus Marotta didn’t qualify as a sperm donor" This means that even if he waived his rights, proper procedures were not followed by law so the waived rights is no longer valid, which means he would get parental rights/custody/visitation.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:51pm
  13. I know, in PA at least, that child support & child custody are two different entities

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:51pm
  14. Although, I totally disagree with the decision regardless of procedures followed. This can definitely cause issues for same sex couples in the future.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:52pm
  15. if he got her pregnant the "old fashioned" way then he has parental rights.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:52pm
  16. And he can and should be paid for his services of providing the sperm equal to the amount of child support.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:53pm
  17. This is all blatant discriminatory BS!

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:04pm
  18. If a man is behind in child support payments at the time that he signs his rights away, he still owes that support… but will not be responsible for support of that child after relinquishing all legal rights concerning the child. I have a problem with the state forcing people to pay thousands to go through "proper" insemination… but they should have at least ensured parental rights were appropriately relinquished and filed. It really does not matter how the sperm was placed… old fashioned or not… this father does not have any parental rights… to be used by the mother or the state. The other issue I have is people making assumptions about the parent's ability to afford to raise a child… and what her actual circumstances are to put her in that situation…. even "traditional" couples don't expect the relationships to fail and find themselves raising children on their own, or a loss of a job, etc.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:16pm
  19. @Pup Equality ... he was paid

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:19pm
  20. ugh, bullshit

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:39pm
  21. Wtf I feel bad for the sperm donor

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:39pm
  22. “We gave them money because of you so give it back.”

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:40pm
  23. That’s very very wrong. I hope he takes it to appeals.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:40pm
  24. that’s ridiculous!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:40pm
  25. This is a very dangerous precedent.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:40pm
  26. I couldn't agree more.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:20pm
  27. That is why lesbians are not respected

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:40pm
  28. 1) ...the fuck are you yapping about? 2) Did you even read this? The lesbians SUPPORT the guy's "right" not to be involved. The STATE is the one bringing the action against him, and not on the women's behalf.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:49pm
  29. Lol you work at a college yet you can't read and comprehend Jaci.............

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:20pm
  30. This is absolutely 100% messed up and makes the LGBTQ community look like assholes. This man affered to help them bring a child into their lives and now they should leave him alone.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:40pm
  31. Stole the words right out of my mouth!

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:47pm
  32. Did you even READ this??? The women are on HIS side. The STATE is the one bringing the action, and not on their behalf.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:57pm
  33. No Freddie - Kate and Ben didn't read the article at all. I don't think they even read the full title of the article.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:18pm
  34. MOst people don't read the articles through....They just read the misleading headlines.....Now as to the headline...PROPAGANDA MUCH? I'll bet the idea behind the headline was to get people read it.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:20pm
  35. When you have a child and want Public Assistance they want the name of the Baby Daddy and they usually will petition for Child Support…

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:40pm
  36. I think this might be a step backwards. . . .

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:40pm
  37. … um? They went seeking sperm not a father for their child… i have a moral objection to this. Does thins mean every guy who donates to a sperm bank must pay child support what about women who donate eggs?

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:40pm
  38. He did not donate through a sperm bank. If he had his parental rights would have been automatically severed, because a licensed physician had handled the donation. However, they found this guy on Craigslist trying to go the cheap route and wrote up something on a candy bar wrapper. If only women and sperm donors would do their research first they would find out that you can choose to pay now or later.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:00pm
  39. they did not follow the law, or apparently even think about the laws in Kansas. Are the laws in Kansas bs? Yep, but that doesn't mean they are to be ignored. That said, where the hell is the other "mother"?

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:00pm
  40. Deanna Long ... Their relationship fell apart. Both mothers are fighting for the man to NOT have to pay but it's the state enforcing it because she had to go on assistance.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:20pm
  41. This is bullshit. The other parent should be paying support NOT the sperm donor.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:40pm
  42. I agree.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:54pm
  43. Fight it. That’s bullshit.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:40pm
  44. That’s utter nonsense.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:40pm
  45. That’s so stupid.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:41pm
  46. That’s total bs.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:41pm
  47. wow.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:41pm
  48. The headline should read “Kansas judge rules that same-sex couples cannot both be parents of their children”.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:41pm
  49. This is ridiculous

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:41pm
  50. OH NO! this couple should NOT have had a child they could not have provided for, this man should not have to pay the state back. this is insane. this will cause problems for same sex couples everywhere :(

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:41pm
  51. Completely agree

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:49pm
  52. agreed!

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:51pm
  53. that is the idea. screw same sex couples. this ruling is discriminatory.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:52pm
  54. Did anyone read the article? It's the STATE that brought the suit and is wanting the money back.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:57pm
  55. In all fairness to the judge, the man is biologically the father. He is NOT a legal sperm donor. The moms went about it the wrong way. A hetero couple would be in the same predicament. However, to advertise for sperm on the internet, not involve a doctor in the procedure, support the child on public assistance...that takes nerve. As badly as anyone wants a child, you just don't do it like that. Eventually you have to do a recertification with the government & they want to know who fathered the child. That poor man doesn't stand a chance at this point.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:57pm
  56. I totally agree.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:57pm
  57. Holli, I see that & I think if one of the moms are working, they should have to pay the state back.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:58pm
  58. Guess what?? Hard times fall on everyone no matter what their life is like! Here I am faced with trying to figure out how to financially take care of my 4 kids now that I'm a single parent because my husband up and decided that he just can't handle being a husband and full time parent anymore.. 4 kids that while married were not a big deal to financially care for. So until you know what their personal lives are like or what their situation was before now, maybe you should all just quit being so judgemental!

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:14pm
  59. WHOA WHOA WHOA .... <---- former welfare mom of 4. Judgemental much? Did you read the article? If you ask for sperm on craigslist, don't use a doctor or a lawyer, or the proper procedures & are over $6000 in debt to PA, I know the drill.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:16pm
  60. So punish them because they don't want the intrusion of an unnecessary medical procedure? Really??

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:18pm
  61. Elle Waller ... If you read the story and do some research, they COULD afford the child when they had the baby. Then life happened and they had to go on assistance ... I think it's dreadful what happened to both the parents and their donor but let's avoid making snap judgements without research ... I've been following this story closely for some years now.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:18pm
  62. If its true that it was done by illegal means, than this guy is at fault for taking the risk and deserves to pay. If it was all above the table than the court made an idiotic decision. The takeaway from this, if you want kids you need to do it the right way. Those medical procedures are there to protect everyone involved.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:35pm
  63. Not okay at all.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:42pm
  64. The parents of this child are out of order for pursuing this!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:42pm
  65. WHAT?!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:42pm
  66. That.. is not a great precedent.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:42pm
  67. This should teach you to stay offa craigslist.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:42pm
  68. Stupid

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:42pm
  69. Ridiculous on the mothers parts as well as the judges. This is just absurdity in the highest.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:42pm
  70. Well thats a crock of shit.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:42pm
  71. I don’t understand, is the couple looking for child support, or is the state just being a bunch of assholes?

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:42pm
  72. The couple owes the state, and either can't or won't pay. So the state is going after the guy. The women are on the guy's side!

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:04pm
  73. Oh ok

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:23pm
  74. What the fuck? Way to damage the cause.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:42pm
  75. That’s so wrong.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:42pm
  76. He will win in higher court appeal else sperm donors everywhere are in trouble.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:43pm
  77. This is terrible! He should not be held responsible! It is hard enough to find willing sperm donors as is. This is going to make that even harder.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:43pm
  78. This is so very wrong!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:43pm
  79. SMFH

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:43pm
  80. what crap. donors cannot and shouldnt be held responsible for gift

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:43pm
  81. I think that is WRONG

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:43pm
  82. Totally wrong. Just another reason to give us a bad name smh. What’s wrong with people??

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:43pm
  83. If U Can’t afford to raise a child Don’t have One straight or Gay

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:43pm
  84. Read the article ... at the time of conception, the family COULD afford the child. Later, when the relationship fell apart, she was unable to provide and had to go on assistance.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:21pm
  85. then they need to go after her ex for child support, not the man. This child support shit is really getting out of hand!

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:04pm
  86. so wrong on so many levels

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:43pm
  87. Complete bullshit

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:43pm
  88. This puts us as a community back a step not looking good we fighting for equal rights

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:44pm
  89. I would be terrified as that mother because once he is deemed the father he can sue for child custody. This is disgusting and obscene

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:44pm
  90. id be greatful if someone gave me a life of a child.. I cant have children. I would pay everything. You got the gift of life.. what more can you ask for. If you cant afford the child then maybe you shouldnt of had it. Do payments back to whomever payed.. or something .. leave this guy alone.. when someone is adopted you dont ask birth parents to pay child support, even foster kids dont get child support. They gave there rights up so a child could have a better life

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:44pm
  91. “Kan. judge incapable of intelligent thought”

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:44pm
  92. WHAT?! You have got to be fucking kidding me! Thanks for setting gay rights back a little bit!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:44pm
  93. Did you even READ this???

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:00pm
  94. I did just now.... however, I don't think my roommate who posted here did.... that's what I get for leaving my laptop open.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:03pm
  95. Riiiight :-/

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:16pm
  96. I own up to my stupidity. Life is too short not to. However, I really can't claim this.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:17pm
  97. That’s bull Shit

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:44pm
  98. Rad Ruling .

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:44pm
  99. Why? It's completely in line with the state law, which is pretty straightforward, and not unusual. Florida, Louisiana and even California have similar statutes.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:10pm
  100. Wow. What the hell? Seriously, and they wonder why we have Pride :

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:45pm
  101. ...what do the two have to do with each other??

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:23pm
  102. We need it to combat heteronormative kyriarchical BS like this.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:34pm
  103. This is SO not fair!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:45pm
  104. whenever I need financial assistance from the government, I blame my parents for having me, and their parents for having them… So many people are responsible for me and my children… Go after them all.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:45pm
  105. Oh hell No! They made the choice to take on the responsibility of a child! Smdh!!!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:45pm
  106. Read the fucking article, idiot.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:00pm
  107. This is ridiculous. Do egg donors owe child support now too? So dumb.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:45pm
  108. Why did they give up his name?

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:45pm
  109. Thats fucked up. Money hungry bitches

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:45pm
  110. Read the article, moron. They're on HIS side.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:00pm
  111. This is bullshit. And I 100% support the LGBT community, but the lesbian couple wanted the child. I don’t think this is right AT ALL.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:45pm
  112. This is wrong.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:45pm
  113. Thats bullshit all he is is a donor and shouldnt be paying shit to them.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:45pm
  114. Which is why he ISN'T on the hook to THEM. Did you even read this??? They women are on HIS side!

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:03pm
  115. That’s messed up. The other mother should be made to pay, not the sperm donor. He signed away his rights and that should stand for something.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:45pm
  116. It is sad. But it’s what happened. We as a community need to be sure we can support the child before getting a donor. I wasn’t aware public assistance was involved, but not surprised at the state’s response. They are trying to move away from supporting so many people. I’ve seen first hand how hard they go after noncustodial parents for financial responsibility. It sucks, but the donor should have protected himself better. Gotten a lawyer to review the agreement at least.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:45pm
  117. dont feel bad, guys straight couples pull this shit all the time!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:46pm
  118. Pull what shit? Since you obviously didn't even READ it... I'd love to know. The women are on HIS side. The state is taking action against him, not them, and not on their behalf.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:07pm
  119. Fucking ridiculous

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:46pm
  120. What’s crazy is that it seems like the state is interfering. He’s not asking to be a part of this child’s life, nor are the couple asking for payment from him either. I’m not understanding why this is an issue at all. The state should have better things to do than this I would hope

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:46pm
  121. That’s just wrong

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:46pm
  122. The state butting in where it is not needed, ignoring deadbeat dads and moms, for more sensational attention.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:46pm
  123. This is horrible… This has everything to do with Kansas, not the LGBT community.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:46pm
  124. Way to set the gay community back several steps. This is absurd!.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:46pm
  125. He better have joint custody

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:46pm
  126. I think this is when we need to start saying I was drunk and I do not remember who I slept with sorry to say. But if they meaning the state wants to go after a donor like this, then this is what you are going to have to do to avoid it.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:47pm
  127. They did this on their own without medical assistance that’s why the judge ruled this way. Donors who go to a sperm bank and use medical professionals aren’t affected by this ruling. That is my understanding. Shame on the lesbian couple for this problem.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:47pm
  128. Wow really hes just the donor. And now he has to pay child suppory..thats why i dont donate

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:47pm
  129. SMH This is idiotic and wrong.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:47pm
  130. That is bullshit

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:47pm
  131. More bad press for same sex couples, just what we need!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:47pm
  132. Attention Sperm Banks, your volunteers just went from many to NONE! I am a straight female, and do NOT approve of this BULLSHIT!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:47pm
  133. they found him on craigslist

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:09pm
  134. One more reason not to live in Kansas.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:47pm
  135. These women made the wrong choice. I almost think they pre-planned this.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:48pm
  136. This is why you check and double-check before signing a contract.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:48pm
  137. This is the most ridiculous load of sh*t I have ever heard. The judge really got this wrong on so many levels.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:48pm
  138. Actually, no. The judge got it right, as the law is rather clear. THEY did not seek sufficient counsel. How is that the judge's fault????

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:02pm
  139. Stupid. So stupid.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:49pm
  140. This is absurd.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:49pm
  141. Unfair

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:50pm
  142. Lisa Koelsch

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:50pm
  143. Signing rights away only means you have no rights or right to custody/visitation. It does NOT mean you have no financial obligations to the child. If men were allowed to simply have kids and sign rights over without financial obligation —the Welfare system would be BOMBARDED worse than it is now. 1. The couple should NOT have purposefully had a pregnancy/child they could not afford. This all happened because they used the Welfare system. 2. A lawyer should have informed them and the father this could happen. I really don’t think the couple intended to go after him for child support themselves. They just didn’t know this could happen. Maybe they will help him pay this debt, and return any future child support payments to him.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:50pm
  144. arent there sperm donor laws

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:50pm
  145. if the procedure is done legally

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:07pm
  146. The title leads the reader in the complete wrong direction. The couple is/was not asking him for support. The mother even tried to keep his name secret. Reading between the lines in the article seems as though the state is leading this charge.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:51pm
  147. And can he now retroactively Charge the mothers for his sperm?

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:51pm
  148. Oh hell no. They asked for a sperm donor, they got one, if they were not fully willing and able to take care of the child that they planned for, then they should have been more responsible in their timing of having said child. The sperm donor should not be held accountable for what the recipients are doing.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:51pm
  149. Read the fucking article.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:01pm
  150. This sets a very bad legal precedent.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:05pm
  151. And yes, I understand they did not follow artificial insemination procedures. However, the fact that a SPERM DONOR is being required to pay child support for a child of a couple that they have ABSOLUTELY NO RELATIONSHIP WITH is just a road headed toward disaster where all sperm donors may have to take responsibility for any and all children produced through the selection of their particular DNA.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:07pm
  152. Again, READ THE FREAKIN' ARTICLE. He didn't do what's required to BE excused as a sperm donor... thus he cannot be considered one under the law. If they just let this guy slide, despite obviously not doing what it takes-- then that sets a precedent of allowing just about ANY dude who doesn't want to pay child support, to claim that "Oh, I was just the sperm donor!" There's a process for a reason. He didn't follow it. WHY he didn't follow it, is immaterial to the court... that's his problem, not theirs. Thus he cannot claim to only be a sperm donor. Very clear cut and straightforward.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:24pm
  153. Why did this couple choose to have a child when they clearly could not afford it? Irresponsible, to say the least.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:51pm
  154. THis is NUTS Fricking Insane !!!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:52pm
  155. They only wanted sperm, not a father for their child. I was under the assumption that a sperm donor had to sign off on any legal rights. ? There’s more to this story yet to come out.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:52pm
  156. Now, if the info we’re given here is correct, the man is being a victim of extortion. Shame for the women involved.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:52pm
  157. You obviously didn't READ this. The women are on HIS side!

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:01pm
  158. He must have had a stupid lawyer.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:52pm
  159. I’m very torn on this. The couple did not follow a 1994 law requiring a licensed professional to be consulted for artificial insemination. However the donor did sign a contract waiving all rights as a parent. However the problem lies in the fact that the woman then received state assistance for the child. This bringing it into light that they did not follow proper procedure and the state has a self proclaimed right to require him to pay for that assistance since he could not legally be considered a “donor”.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:52pm
  160. Ah. I see. The couple in quesiton did not seek child support. Because they did not use a liscensed physician, the judge held that it was not a legal artificial to relieve him of his parental obligations. Thus, the state has decided that he is liable for the funds the state spent in assitance to the women.

    Still horsehit.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:52pm
  161. Sorry to say this, but not even to your best friend…..He was helping them to have a kid, now he got into this mess….not fair for him…

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:53pm
  162. …donor is the keyword, here…

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:54pm
  163. WOW! STUPID!!!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:54pm
  164. This is just WRONG. This man is NOT the father because he has no parental rights….he is a sperm donor….and unless ALL sperm donors are going to be held financially liable for their “children”, then this man should not be held liable either.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:55pm
  165. Yeah whatever

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:55pm
  166. They wanted a child, he helped, it’s ridiculous he’s been hit with this. This will put a damper on other couples who need help to have children…totally unfair.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:56pm
  167. Does anyone READ before they type anymore! The couple didn’t bring the lawsuit, the STATE did. The state did so because a doctor wasn’t involved. If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the government, not the couple.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:56pm
  168. Holli, I replied to you in my comment. My "anger" at the couple is that they didn't go about the donation the correct way, and that this fiasco happened because of it. Even in desperation you shouldn't have a child that you KNOWINGLY cannot afford. Sadly, the judge was left with no other way to rule. Hopefully, an appellate court will see past all of this & if either of the moms is working, SHE will have to pay back the financial assistance.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:05pm
  169. Elle, Thank you for the reply. The anger should also be at the "donor" for not protecting himself either. I also think the article is just poorly written because "state assistance" is so broad as to not know what it means, but is a phrase that is used to inflame. I agree that the small bit of information makes everyone involved look ridiculous. The article doesn't really say anything about the financial situation of the couple. They very well could have made a poor financial decision, but we don't know. It does require more investigating. However, way too many comments on this whole thread show that people read the headline and not the article.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:10pm
  170. Ok, I did find more information and I do agree with you in the "why the hell did they have another child." The problem is the lesbian couple split and state law doesn't allow the state to go after the other lesbian parent. One of the parents lost their job which is why they sought state support. However an article says they have 8 children and this child is 3 so I do agree, why the hell did they have another child?

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:13pm
  171. Tanya Smith- it sounds like the child had special needs. That can’t be predicted and is certainly an unexpected expense. They true parents (same sex couple) should be entitled to the same benefits a heterosexual couple is! A couple that adopted a child would have rights to government assistance! They didn’t ask for the agency to sue the father! It shouldn’t be so hard to use a donor outside the physicians office! God knows it isn’t for heteros! It’s just another way for the government to try to regulated or family and private lives! It’s absolutely ridiculous, unconditional, and disgusting!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:56pm
  172. wrong!!!!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:56pm
  173. We have NO idea what ended them in welfare. Maybe they lost a job or someone got hurt or WHO knows what. They weren’t careful about following the laws and that was the mistake of ALL parties involved but how dare you judge them for falling on hard times

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:56pm
  174. I don't think anyone is judging them for falling on hard times. Just questioning why they asked for sperm donation on Craigs list & didn't use a doctor and an attorney. If they had, none of this would have happened.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:08pm
  175. so, they obviously didn't have the money to have this child

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:08pm
  176. "so, they obviously didn't have the money to have this child" And you know that how?? Do share. Because with even the slightest bit of additional reading, you'll see that the child had health issues. Do you have the slightest clue how **EASY** it is to rack up 4, 5, even 6 figures worth of medical debt? No, of course you don't. Because if you did, you wouldn't be casting judgment based on information you don't even have access to.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:53pm
  177. So any whore can go out and get knocked up, fail to remember the guy’s name, claim State aid and that is ok. But if you’re a lesbian and artificially inseminate better get a physicians help or your donor will be held financial responsible should you fall on hard times. Hmm, discrimination?

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:57pm
  178. So they are being punished because they wanted it to be a more personal experience rather than having the stress and intrusion of an unnecessary medical procedure?? Pretty messed up…

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:57pm
  179. That’s not right!!! My partner and I used a sperm donor and unless there is an agreement that he is to be the actual father he should not be responsible in anyway!!! Thanks for setting gay couples back! Ridiculous and I feel sorry for this guy I hope he sues this damn judge & the state! I am so glad the couple is standing by the donor!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:57pm
  180. This would be the same if a straight couple did this. It’s not a gay issue. Although something to be mindful of in the future. It’s because they accepted state aid and the state seems to get some if that back through child support. No man can just say here is my sperm but I don’t want any legal responsibility or parental rights. The gay couple should have sought legal advise

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:57pm
  181. It feels like Holli Broadfoot and I were the only ones the read the article!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:57pm
  182. Hey look… Kansas is trying to “persuade” men to not help lesbian couples have children… attention all sperm donors… your gift could come back to haunt you….

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:57pm
  183. What better way to prevent lesbians from having children??

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:59pm
  184. riddiculous!

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:01pm
  185. You gotta be kidding me

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:57pm
  186. This seems absolutely ridiculous. No good deed goes unpunished.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:57pm
  187. That is just legalistic homophobia meant to punish gays.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:58pm
  188. wrong decision. The state of Kansas was dead wrong here, but there was no reason for the couple to identify the donor.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:58pm
  189. Uh no. The law's quite clear. If you want to argue the merits of the law, then that's for another trial... but in this case, you cannot be considered a donor under a boilerplate contract with no proper donor facility involved. Pretty straight forward. "Oh I didn't know that" doesn't exactly hold up in court. Should've sought counsel, first rule of surrogacy/donorship!

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:06pm
  190. not considered a donor means you are NOT a donor. UNKNOWN should have been the answer.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:09pm
  191. Mikelle Archer… I think you are right. There is nothing that discourages a person more than hurting their pocketbook.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:59pm
  192. People ***READ THE FREAKIN’ ARTICLE***

    The women are not out to get this guy, they’re on HIS side!!!!

    The state is the one bringing the action, and not on the women’s behalf. It’s over back payments that the women apparently can’t afford (for whatever reason, that neither you nor I know, so let’s not pretend we do).

    Thus the state is going after the guy’s pockets.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:59pm
  193. The way I read it, it wasn’t the mother bringing the claim but the state to collect back the state assistance. People who are going in their comments after the lesbian couple seem not to have read the article at all.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:59pm
  194. Solution: Don’t ever disclose who your sperm donor is! If he’s required to give a name then give a fake name!!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 4:59pm
  195. Yeahhhh, that's called PERJURY when you do it under oath... which is a crime. Pretty serious one too. So, pretty stupid advice to follow. Better advice would be: SEEK APPROPRIATE COUNSEL before you enter into a surrogacy/donorship!

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:13pm
  196. this will be detrimental to the cause of equality

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:00pm
  197. Poor story for all parties involved…

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:00pm
  198. Never help anyone out with anything because it will always come back to bite you in the ass!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:00pm
  199. If any of you who are shaming the couple had READ it, you would see they did not initiate the action. I mean, if you’re talking about setting a bad example, on the principle that what YOU think is universal, then I would argue any couple (same or opposite sex) that marries is setting a bad example, as they are flaunting and accepting the notion that the state has any business in a relationship.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:00pm
  200. Wow! Talk about a favor coming back to bite you!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:01pm
  201. I certainly don’t agree with this. This is blatant punishment for helping same sex couples have children.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:01pm
  202. What’s nuts about this? One of the biological parents asked for state assistance. When that happens, the state will go after the other biological parent for child support, even if the other parent does not want it. It’s the states obligation to demand child support. Had they followed the law, they would not be in this predicament. It’s pretty simple in my opinion.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:01pm
  203. I read about this early on. The problem here was they contract they entered into. It was flimsy as hell so he has to pay. They didn’t go about this process in a normal fashion when it comes to donation. So it doesn’t shock me the state is seeking compensation.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:02pm
  204. This is complete bullshit

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:02pm
  205. For those thinking this only applies to Kansas, think again. This same situation would have happened in almost every state.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:02pm
  206. I did read the article and have edited my comment here , The judge is following the law to the letter , but this is why we need judges and jury’s if we only needed to follow the law to the letter without using discretion or common sense then we would not need our Judges or jury’s to help our laws be applied fairly and for the purpose in which they were written. this is not a good example of our laws being applied fairly .

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:03pm
  207. The heck are you talking about? lol 1) the law in the state surrounding the matter is clear 2) they didn't seek proper counsel 3) "OMG, I didn't know that!" never holds up in court ...sooooo, um, how exactly is this the judge's problem? Do share, because I'd love to hear your explanation.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:09pm
  208. there is such a thing as intent and his intent is clear and he should appeal because he was not trying to become a father. by the way this is why we have judges because everything is not cut and dry as you would like to put it here and sometimes we need a judge to clear matters like this up and do so in a correct and just way for all party's involved . not to punish but to resolve fairly. this is where our legal system fails when we cant use common sense .

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:16pm
  209. and yes I agree they should have seen a lawyer before .

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:17pm
  210. "there is such a thing as intent" Intent is an element of criminal action and tort recovery... not exactly statutory applications of family law. ****************************** "and he should appeal because he was not trying to become a father" As per above, his intent doesn't matter in this such proceeding. Dude, you speak of common sense-- yet you don't appear to be USING IT, by making a statement like that. Think about it: if "I wasn't trying to become a father" held any weight, then what would stop EVERY guy who doesn't want to pay child support, from using that??? ****************************** "we need a judge to clear matters like this up" There's nothing to clear up. The law is rather straightforward, and quite common (Florida, Louisiana, California, etc all have similar statutes). These people did not seek adequate counsel (FIRST RULE of surrogacy/donorship!!!) and are now subject to the consequences. "OMG, I didn't know!" doesn't hold up in family court... no matter how much one might wish that it did.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:09pm
  211. tOTALLY ABSURD….father to pay but not for raise a child? And if is true he don’t know about the procedure….he’s a victim as the child of two irresponsables mothers…

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:03pm
  212. tOTALLY ABSURD….father to pay but not for raise a child? And if is true he don’t know about the procedure….he’s a victim as the child of two irresponsables mothers…

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:03pm
  213. That’s bullshit

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:03pm
  214. And how many straight parents have or have had a action taken agaist them for the same reason as the father does not pay his child support..i almost bet you can not find one taken to the same degree…

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:04pm
  215. I am saying the decision the judge made is bullshit.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:04pm
  216. How stupid

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:04pm
  217. Elle Waller- you’re wrong! Hetero couples are never in the same situation. Like Bree Leavitt said, how many irrepressible heteros are getting pregnant every day! Same sex could have to plan it! And they drew up a signed contract. If a female is out cheating on her man and gets knocked up, the man can put his name on the birth certificate. No DNA test is done unless there is question. According to this ruling, there should be mandatory DNA tests done across the board so that the correct parents are held accountable for support! And the state should be going after anyone behind with just as much vigor as they are going after this poor man!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:05pm
  218. Mean while, dead beat dads get away with not paying child support…

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:05pm
  219. That is so fucked up. He did something nice for people and now he’s getting screwed. This will make it harder for real loving couples to find donors. :(

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:06pm
  220. Ridiculous.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:07pm
  221. This couple is the reason why same sex couples have problems adopting ad doing sperm donors

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:07pm
  222. Clif- here’s your example. My brother is currently being mandated by the state of Missouri to pay child support to a child he had from a one night stand. The mother filed for state assistance and did not want child support. But because she asked for state assurance, the state came after him for child support. This is not because the couple is lesbian, it’s state law.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:07pm
  223. Someone explain why a doctor has to be involved in the procedure in order to legally define a sperm donor a sperm donor.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:07pm
  224. Just not right….

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:08pm
  225. Wether it’s a same sex couple or not this is wrong if they wanted a baby they should have made sure they had the income,greedy women What greedy greedy women

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:08pm
  226. He should not have to pay. They wanted the child. This is bad for all lesbians who want donors!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:09pm
  227. I wana kno more about tht state assistance bcuz idc gay straight bi if u cant afford babies u shldnt be makin em period. So tht will really determine the case 4 me

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:09pm
  228. If they are receiving state assistance, the state will ask for child support from the other biological parent. It’s not hard to understand.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:09pm
  229. Wow! Is there any “proper” way to get pregnant? If the mothers weren’t asking for child support and the man wasn’t seeking custody or visitation rights, how the heck did this even come to light much less in the courts? What consenting adults do among consenting adults should remain private. And why is the contract he signed moot? Gosh, this is a private contract between consenting individuals. This whole thing sounds really weird.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:09pm
  230. Actually, YES.... there IS a proper way to go about surrogacy/donorship. Clearly outlined by law. And it exists for a REASON. WHY these people chose not to seek adequate/competent counsel on this, is not the court's issue nor problem. THAT they did not follow the procedure as outlined by the law, IS the court's issue.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:29pm
  231. Girls have asked for my stuff…and I say no no no! No regrets no kids!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:11pm
  232. Read the article! The couple requested state assistance, the state is then required to ask for child support from the other biological parent.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:12pm
  233. Another reason why the US should allow same sex marriage or civil unions, when we have children my wife and I willl both be on the birth certificate legally and our donor will have no legal rights or requirements. Protecting us all from stupidity like in this story!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:12pm
  234. Just because it follows the law, doesn’t mean the law is always right. The guy shouldn’t have to pay for donating sperm. It doesn’t make any sense.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:12pm
  235. What are you talking about? It makes PERFECT sense. States have surrogacy/donorship regulations and requirements for a REASON..... and these people didn't follow them. Why on Earth would they let this guy off the hook? ...what then is to stop just about any other male, who doesn't want to pay support, from trying to get out of it by claiming "I was just a donor!"??? The courts simply see who followed the statutory process to be labeled a donor, and who didn't. This guy didn't. So he doesn't slide. What about that "doesn't make any sense"??

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:45pm
  236. Exactly Holli Broadfoot thy nd to specify

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:12pm
  237. What is this world coming to? As if everyone owes somebody something. Pathetic!!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:13pm
  238. Megan

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:13pm
  239. I agree with Elle Waller – they should not have had a planned pregnancy if they were unable to provide the support for the baby. The state should not have to provide in a situation of choice and the sperm donor shouldn’t either unless he had made that decision prior to the donation. IMO

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:13pm
  240. Known donors are extremely problematic. Hence why we are using a sperm bank

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:13pm
  241. Bullshit! A straight couple that adopts can seek benefits if they need it! And why is everyone assuming it’s welfare because the “irresponsible” parents couldn’t provide! It could be a special need! This would be like suing a teen mom that put her crack baby up for adoption! Or saying that adoptive parents of special needs are not entitled to benefits for them because they should be “responsible” enough to pay for them if they adopted them!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:14pm
  242. This has nothing to do with the sexuality of the parties. They didn’t follow the law.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:14pm
  243. Huh? Must be male, conservative logic.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:14pm
  244. ...says the woman who's exuding misandry. Newsflash Sherlock: the judge followed the letter of the law. There is a statutorily defined process for surrogacy/donorship in Kansas, and it's not unusual. States from Florida, to Louisiana, to California have nearly the same requirements. Why these people either didn't know, or chose to ignore, those requirements is not the issue before the court-- the fact that they proceeded without following them, is. "OMG I didn't know" is not an excuse in family court. So how about a little less presumptive-man-hating, and a little more knowledge about what ACTUALLY is at hand? :-/

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:38pm
  245. I agree with Elle Waller – the couple should not have made a decision to have a baby unless they could provide for its support. The state shouldn’t have to pay and neither should the sperm donor. IMO

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:15pm
  246. You're being presumptuous and judgmental. First of all, it seems this kid has health issues-- parents can only account for so much, and severe health issues are enough to override anyone's budget. As far as the donor-- well, he didn't follow the law. He also didn't follow common sense, as SEEKING APPROPRIATE COUNSEL is the first rule of surrogacy/donorship!!

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:46pm
  247. I’m gay and that’s still bullshit

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:15pm
  248. That is not right. The kid already has two moms.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:16pm
  249. This is such crap!!I really dislike that this puts a label on lesbians who are more than capable and willing to raise happy and healthy children without the sperm donors help. uuuggggg, frustrated by this

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:17pm
  250. JUST WRONG!!!! THEY MADE THE CHOICE TO HAVE THE CHILD…HE SHOULDN’T BE HELD RESPONSIBLE. KANSAS IS JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT HARDER ON SAME SEX COUPLES TO HAVE CHILDREN. BY DOING THIS…MEN WON’T WANT TO BECOME DONORS!!!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:18pm
  251. Only in Kansas could a judge be this damn stupid

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:18pm
  252. This is a crappy situation for everyone really.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:18pm
  253. Andrew

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:19pm
  254. That’s utter bullshit! It’s not enough that the guy GAVE THEM A FUCKING BABY, is it?! Shame on the couple for taking the money too! I WAS planning on donating to my lesbian friends, but if they can sneak attack like this, they can just forget it! Find another sucker!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:19pm
  255. State law or not , it doesn’t make it right . It’s a valuable and in most cases a necessary service . Right is right , and wrong is wrong – That applies to unjust laws also .

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:19pm
  256. Total BS

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:19pm
  257. Wow, when I was living a lie and pretended to be straight, my then husband and I used an anonymous donor, in order for me to get pregnant. He was sterile…. the kids “dad” died a year ago. So does this mean I can pursue the donor for child support??? Ugh…I think not!!! What this does is, scare away the good men, that would donate to those who want to have children and can’t. Has nothing to do with gay or straight!! This is sad!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:20pm
  258. They should’ve listed the’father’ as unknown to avoid state issues. Both of the women should be supporting the child, not the donor. Completely messed up

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:20pm
  259. Yeah, if there is no “legal father” on a birth certificate and any sort of state assistance is received for the child (Medicaid, food stamps, etc), the state establishes paternity so the biological father can pay child support so the state doesn’t get ripped off. I understand why the state does it- so millionaires don’t go around having kids at the taxpayers’ expense, but in situations like this, the other mother should be able to be the other legal parent. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. They see it as “it takes 2 to make a child, so 2 should be responsible for it.”

    I just don’t see why they can’t have someone else besides the biological father be the other legal parent. I know of people who have signed birth certificates without being the biological parent, if the real dad wasn’t involved or whatever.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:22pm
  260. Wait, does that mean men are financially responsible for every emission we produce? Wasn’t the man relieved of responsibility when they submitted the documentation to donate sperm?

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:22pm
  261. This is ridiculous! Another dumb law on the books apparently.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:23pm
  262. Uh, no it's not. And most states have a defined process for surrogacy/donorship, similar to this. These people have no one to blame but themselves, for not seeking adequate counsel, before going forward with this.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:41pm
  263. Okay.. umm I’m a lesbian and I totally feel this is so wrong on so many levels. No wonder why straight people don’t want us to have kids.. this guy donated trying to help people out (and maybe make $ too) now he is stuck paying child support?!? How is that right in anyways. And why is it okay for teenage mom that doesn’t know baby daddy’s name to get state support with being embarrassed.. because I would fight not know my sperm donor. I dunno this is just fucked up

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:23pm
  264. That’s wrong.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:24pm
  265. I’d like to know if any of that $6,000 was used to pay for any of it , and if so would that not make the state a conspirator in the act . If not , why not – it makes lust as much sence .

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:24pm
  266. That’s BS.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:25pm
  267. Jessica Rasmussen U R MORE THEN RIGHT!!!! I HAD THE SAME ISSUE…WHEN HE KNEW I WAS GONNA BE DISABLED & LOOSE MY JOB. FOLKS NEED TO STOP TELLING OTHERS WHAT THEY NEED…WHEN THE KIDS WERE MADE…NEEDS WERE MET!!!!
    TY FOR THIS COMMENT!!! WE ALL NEED SOME HELP @ TIMES!!!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:26pm
  268. People posting and not reading what they are posting on the comments about. READ THE ARTICLE! The women isn’t asking for this and they are on his side! GEEEEZUZ CHRIST!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:26pm
  269. Read the article before commenting, please! The couple does NOT want his money; the state does. This is state-sanctioned discrimination.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:26pm
  270. What??

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:27pm
  271. I think I may have read this wrong but to me it seems like the couple doesn’t want the man to pay anything, however they did not go “by the rules”… And craigslist?! seriously?! A lesbian couple is that poor to find a donor on craigslist?! he could be a murderer for all they knew!! ._. But, yea. Wow. Shit.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:28pm
  272. that is fucked up

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:30pm
  273. Dumb!!! Those two women should be ashamed of themselves and the state of Kansas should be ashamed as well. Clearly he was sperm donar – Nothing else. God help all parties involved. This is sickening.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:31pm
  274. thats just wrong!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:31pm
  275. It us wrong.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:32pm
  276. if the women really don’t want the money they return it. sure!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:33pm
  277. This couple should oppose this vociferously!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:34pm
  278. That’s outrageous.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:34pm
  279. Absurd.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:35pm
  280. This is horseshit. I understand that the couple didn’t want his money. This sperm donation was done in good faith and they drew up a contract between each party. The fact that they didn’t include a doctor is stupid. That shouldn’t be a factor.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:36pm
  281. My brother had a one night stand. The girl he was with got pregnant. The girl stated that there was three different potential fathers. She was certain it was my brothers, and she DID NOT want child support. The mother moves out of her parents home and requests state assistance for housing. The state then required all the potential fathers to submit to a DNA test to determine the father. After determining my brother is the father, THE STATE (Missouri), not the mother, is demanding child support because she is on state assistance for housing. This is the way it works. The fact that the couple in this story is lesbian is a non issue. They did not follow the state law for sperm donation. The state has an obligation to collect money from a parent to cover the assistance given. Unfortunately, many of you here are letting the couples sexuality cloud your judgment.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:37pm
  282. SMH

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:39pm
  283. From the look s of this story, the couple broke up. I feel the parent that bailed out of the relationship should be the one responsible for paying child support, not the sperm donor! She was held responsible the moment her and her partner agreed to have a baby and brought a child into the world and considered themselves the child’s parents. I am a lesbian and do not agree with this. This is another reason why I don’t want to have kids until I’m with someone and know that it’s solid…she’s a dead beat mom!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:40pm
  284. This might make me unpopular in the comment section because I’m not going to talk about how greedy these two women are, I’m going to talk about what a fucking idiot the “donor” is! WHHYYY would you just go around giving out sperm to people who post online ads? Did he not think at all about this exact sort of situation occurring? There are laws and protections in place to stop this and he circumvented all of them at his own risk and now, tragically, he has to suffer the consequences

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:41pm
  285. This is so crazy. Leave the dude alone! Its the parents responsibility to support the child. Not a sperm donors. Insane.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:44pm
  286. Calm down worry warts. The law in Kansas doesn’t recognize marriage equality yet. So legally speaking, the
    “couple” isn’t a couple. That is why this is a mess. As much as I hate to say it, the judge, under Kansas law, did the right thing. Having legal rights work both ways, In Kansas those woman were not a couple. Even if marriage was legal in Kansas and the couple was NOT married, the ruling would have been the same as it stands.Lesson? Don’t carelessly handout your sperm with your name written all over it.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:44pm
  287. That’s bs. I hope it gets overturned.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:45pm
  288. What! That is just wrong! I would fight that to the end if I was that man!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:46pm
  289. Wow, that’s messed up!! Poor guy was just a donor! How does that make him responsible??

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:46pm
  290. He is responsible because he didn’t follow state law.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:47pm
  291. How fucking stupid is this? This “Judge” has his head up his ass!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:49pm
  292. That’s not right. I’m sorry, but when you get a sperm donor, the understanding is that they have no parental rights or responsibility. The state should not be stepping in on this. If a straight couple adopted, would the state go after the birth parents for child support? No! This undermines the mothers as parents and could open the door for the donor to claim parental rights. This will also discourage future potential donors. It’s absolute bull shit.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:49pm
  293. This is bullshit!. They shouldn’t have ran an online ad for a sperm donar in the first place if they couldn’t afford to have and pay for a kid in the first place. And having to rely on public assistance. ..come on now it’s ridiculous. . Lesbians that do things like this are what makes us all look bad. They ran an ad on Craigslist for crying out loud. .

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:50pm
  294. Your above statement about a heterosexual couple is just plain false. See my previous example.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:50pm
  295. This is not fair. If you can’t support a child then don’t have one.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:52pm
  296. This is so wrong on so many levels. It was done through a handshake agreement. Unfortunately the law does not recognize that, but the guy should not be penalized for having sex with her. It should be her ex-girlfriend

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:53pm
  297. state gonna state

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:54pm
  298. There are many examples of mothers/fathers in heterosexual relationships that don’t want child support, yet the state still demands it. Stop acting as if this is because the couple is lesbian, it has nothing to do with it.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:54pm
  299. No, man….are you stupid?

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:55pm
  300. This is ridiculous.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:56pm
  301. Because the state is being cheap about aid? How much tax money have they wasted on this case so far?

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:56pm
  302. Wait, what?

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:59pm
  303. This highlights the need for a legally drawn contract. Also the state has no business in this mess. Why doesn’t the other partner pay child support? She’s the other mother.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:59pm
  304. Outrageous!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:00pm
  305. This is shitty :/

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:00pm
  306. Can’t believer any guy would volunteer sperm after this ruling…perhaps that is the purpose of the ruling !!!!!!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:00pm
  307. I know the couple and the man in question. The women, especially the one who had the kid, have never seemed like much account as “grown ups”. They went the cheap route to have the kid and tried to get welfare, the man was never supposed to have any obligation to the kid. NOW, the thing that I’d like to know is if the rumor is true that the way he got named is: when the heat got turned up on the women because they wouldn’t name the guy, SOMEONE turned over the piece of paper he signed that was supposed to be their contract that absolved him of responsibility. The state got the name they needed, the women got off the hook and the guy got the shaft. This system is a mess. The kicker is that Jennifer and Andrea aren’t even together anymore.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:01pm
  308. Why would anybody be willing to donate after this? Once again the legal system tramples the rights of men underfoot..

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:02pm
  309. So why did the Dr who impregnated “Octomom” get off without paying anything for the 8 welfare recipients he helped create?

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:02pm
  310. Now that’s a real kick in the nuts.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:03pm
  311. he needs to be free’d from this those two woemn are resposible for this kid not him

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:05pm
  312. What is the poor child was the product of a rape and the couple did not know the identity of the father ??/ would they FIND the Rapist and charge his ass?? this is ridiculous, and while I agree to the argument that you shouldn’t have a child you can not provide for properly, no parent wants to NOT provide and many are unexpected pregnancies, I find it hard to believe that they had this child with the intention of saying OK so we will be poor and struggle and become welfare recipients that’ll be our goal!! PLEASEEEEEE this is absurd, there should be paper work in place to protect the sperm donors from any liability especially like this !! ok Lawyers get on it !!!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:06pm
  313. Why?

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:08pm
  314. NOT RIGHT,HE JUST HELPED THEM OUT BYE DONATING HIS SPERM,NO SEX, NO RELATIONSHIP SO WHY SHOULD HIS GOOD WILL IN HELPING THESE LESBIANS GET SPERM,WHICH THEY CAN’T,BE PENALIZED, NOT RIGHT WITHOUT A CONTRACT!!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:10pm
  315. Maybe the next dude wont be so impressed with himself that he had a gay girl. Maybe the next couple who attempts something so stupid might think twice. And maybe by the sounds of things, the baby might be better off with a horny dad than an idiot mother and absent lover.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:13pm
  316. Now that sucks! Talk about detouring the tendency towards compassion. What was once a gift to bring joy into the lives of two people who are in love could turn into the gift that keeps on taking.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:14pm
  317. Not part of the deal!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:15pm
  318. the Judge is wrong on this one.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:16pm
  319. Um, considering that the law is very straightfoward, and the judge was following the law.... how exactly is the judge "wrong on this one?" Do tell. This should be interesting.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:24pm
  320. all the guy did was drop some Jizz in a cup the Lesbian couple took that Jizz and made a baby his role was done at that point, now they split up one is stuck with the kid, they should go after the other mother and make them both pay the money back instead of going after the guy who just beat off for a few minutes to help those two out. I think sperm donors are going to think twice on this one. and this is going to hurt Lesbian couples who want children. so if a gay couple decided to have a child and a women donated hers eggs and the two broke up would the judge go after the egg donor.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:38pm
  321. "all the guy did was drop some Jizz in a cup the Lesbian couple took that Jizz and made a baby his role was done at that point" And you could, if you had a clue what you're talking about, stop right there and see why the court decided against him. The state (along with most others) has statutory requirements for establishing donorship THAT HE DID NOT FOLLOW. Thus, he cannot claim to be "only the sperm donor." This isn't difficult.

    Replied on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:56pm
  322. BAD IDEA!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:16pm
  323. well if this guy has to support the child than he should have part time custody and visitation rights.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:18pm
  324. Wt F ?

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:21pm
  325. Damn, this is probaly going to turn into a trend.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:23pm
  326. Okay, that is way too far.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:24pm
  327. Wtf?

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:25pm
  328. I feel that it’s not right for any responsibility to fall on him ,They made the choice to have a child, to make a family and go threw all the problems that comes with it. Why should he pay for their choice, if that’s possible it should be his right to fight for custody of his child…!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:25pm
  329. his intent was to get paid for donating sperm, that was the end of his participation there. He should not be held liable for a child that was brought into this world to a couple who could not properly care for him/her. It’s unfair and should be against the law.

    Hope he fights this and wins…give every one of us gay parents to be a very bad reputation…like we need another stigma

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:25pm
  330. All because of legal technicalities . This sucks .

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:31pm
  331. Phil Brandt you made a good point. Why would anyone donate sperm after that ruling!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:33pm
  332. that is absolutely ridiculous, they shouldn’t get a dime

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:35pm
  333. uh, no. I am ALL for equality in marriage, adoption, child rearing, but this is WAY over the line.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:36pm
  334. Yeah this is complete crap.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:37pm
  335. My opinion on this depends alot on what’s actually true here. The biggest issue I see is why would you make this sort agreement with someone who responded to an ad on Craigslist?

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:39pm
  336. Dumb

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:39pm
  337. Now that is totally wrong and i would fight it the death over it… If he is forced to pay… than he should have rights to see and take the child 6 months of the year….

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:41pm
  338. I dont understand why they were seeking child support ….. did the couple split up?

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:45pm
  339. That’s messed up. Poor guy.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:48pm
  340. how stupid can the state get. this was a doner and that was all

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:49pm
  341. n o no no…that was a HUGE step back

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:51pm
  342. What do you expect? It’s Kansas… I think God lives there… might even be a personal friend of the judge…

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:51pm
  343. This is no surprise coming from the land of fucked up bible thumping repukelikans…..

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:52pm
  344. This is ridiculous!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:53pm
  345. He donated sperm to a lesbian couple he shouldn’t have to pay support.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:55pm
  346. I thought that a man gives SPERM to a sperm bank and GETS money in return. Once this becomes a national law, men will likely NOT give to sperm banks as it would directly lead to financial difficulties for HIM. And what would happen to those women who want kids and need the services of a sperm bank? “Sorry ma’am, but all of our wells have dried up.”

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:57pm
  347. Holly they weren’t explicitly seeking child support, the state did in her behalf because she was receiving public assistance

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:57pm
  348. I think the moral of this story is, if you donate sperm then do it at a proper facility or at the very least speak with legal council first.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 6:59pm
  349. this state is phenomenally stupid. fuck you, kansas. can’t wait to leave your shitty ass state as it no longer feels like home to me.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:00pm
  350. I find this so wrong

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:01pm
  351. THe $6000.00 the state is seeking is for the birthing expenses- because the birthing parent was on State insurance (ie: they could not afford to support their child on their own from the beginning). 2nd- this man was not a “sperm donor” that is a legal definition and requires specific circumstances to be deemed such. It is really too bad these women were so completely uninformed about the process. It could have saved them a lot of trouble. I for one am happy to see they are being held to the same requirements and repercussions as a straight couple would have. We want equality- here it is- if we want the good we have to take the bad too!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:02pm
  352. The parents who CHOOSE to be parents are the only TWO who should be financially responsible for the child. WHAT the sperm “came out of” should not be the issue. If they had IVF, the state wouldn’t go after them?! If the child was born to a married, hetero couple, the state wouldn’t go after them?! Well then, that says it all, doesn’t it? The legal ramification is, “Don’t help LGBT have children or we’ll come after you”. This is another way for conservatives to use the courts to punish LGBT supporters. I think this ruling is biased and wrong.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:03pm
  353. No. That’s fucked up.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:03pm
  354. What?

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:06pm
  355. Is he trying to scare men from helping lesbians?!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:07pm
  356. Keep telling ppl a known donor is a bad idea!!!!!!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:09pm
  357. Wtf?! >_<

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:13pm
  358. Some of you are missing the part where this guy responded to a CRAIGSLIST ad. He is not a sperm donor as he didn’t go to a sperm bank. When you go to a sperm bank they have all the paperwork in order that cuts ALL responsibilities from both parties involved. If a heterosexual couple went about pregnancy the same way as this couple did (if the guy was infertile) the result should be the same. It is unsafe donating without regulation. I’m not saying sperm banks are perfect but they do testing, they limit children by donor, etc. this guy could have a bad genetic disorder as pass to all these kids and not know or could have 100s of kids etc. this should teach people a lesson to not have kids unless 1) you can afford it and 2) you do it the RIGHT way. All parties screwed up

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:14pm
  359. And I agree he should pay – for being careless with his DNA. And now he has rights to the kid whether he wanted it or not which is punishment to the couple – that doesn’t appear to have stayed together anyways.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:18pm
  360. Disagree

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:26pm
  361. The couple did not seek child support. The couple used state benefits for the child, which the state wants back. The guy is not protected from that because he didn’t go through a sperm bank. Yet sperm banks are so expensive. Heterosexuals don’t have to pay a thing and…oh oops! Baby! This will make it that much harder for gays and lesbians to be parents…when they are actually PLANNING to be parents…because people will be less likely to help if there is a chance they will face this sort of thing. It is politically and financially motivated. It has nothing at all to do with morals, ethics, or the parents ability to be good parents. It is a shame.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:27pm
  362. He is an idiot. However the couple should be held responsible for the child they wanted. Not the dumb ass sperm donor.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:29pm
  363. I disagree with you Shannon Reddy – I’m gay and have two kids by going through a sperm bank and a dr – the right way. If you can’t afford it you shouldn’t have them – just cuz other ppl flood the system with kids on welfare doesn’t mean we should too

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:30pm
  364. Good bye America..

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:39pm
  365. Ridiculous and quite a stretch!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:41pm
  366. That’s some BS!!! A sperm donor should not be held accountable!!!! This is SO WRONG ON SO MANY LEVELS!!! This is going to stop a lot of people from donating

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:43pm
  367. DID ANYONE ACTUALLY READ THIS?!

    THE LESBIAN COUPLE ISN’T THE ONES DOING ANYTHING TO THEM.
    Its the government doing it to him.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:43pm
  368. Wait, why does he have to pay for child support??

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:45pm
  369. And He’s not a true sperm donor. Sheesh ppl.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:45pm
  370. That’s bs!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:49pm
  371. The legal definition of sperm donor doesn’t change the actual real life definition of sperm donor, which is what this guy is. He is not the child’s parent in any capacity, and if the child needs support, both of his mothers should be on the hook for it. If the child were born to a hetero couple, they would be the assumed legal parents, and it should be the same for LGBT families. That would be real equality. Anything else is discrimination.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:50pm
  372. I agree. Women do not want to be required to bring a child into the world they do not want and can not provide for. Men have the same right. He helped them. He did not want a child.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:52pm
  373. This is NONE of the state’s frikin business! The STATE sued on BEHALF of the couple. They didn’t want it!

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:53pm
  374. Still confused. …these two women got sperm from some dude ….then turn around and ask the state to help them support the child….healthcare etc….I do not beleive they (the state) need to go after the man….he was just tryin to help. Sue the women who PLANNED on the state taking care of their responsibility.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:54pm
  375. Very disappointing

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:54pm
  376. um, yeah, the power to create life = the power to support it. notice that the state did not give this guy rights over a child integrated into a family. like the blurb says, they are simply telling him he has to pay for his biological (as opposed to lawful) child, like any other biological parent (which he is: biology isn’t gender).

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:54pm
  377. Personally, I feel like that couple should be thrown in a male prison and then inseminated the old-fashioned way about 20 times in one day while tied down to a burning hot metal table.

    If this is what kind of treatment men get when trying to offer real help to women who can’t afford to do it the “official” way, then I don’t blame them for never wanting to help. If all they wanted was money, there are better ways to get it that don’t ruin a person’s life.

    In the end, the best we can hope for is that he goes for custody and gets it. But, the poor child probably isn’t that lucky.

    Posted on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:56pm
  378. Wait, why?

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:32pm
  379. What makes no sense is if he RELINQUISHED ALL RIGHTS how is he legaly tied to these children

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:32pm
  380. Since he didn't contribute his sperm in the state-approved manner of using a licensed physician, that's the court's reasoning as to why he is still held responsible. I still think it's wrong, however. The court is essentially punishing a sperm donor for helping a couple, and there may be a string of lawsuits against sperm donors in the future because of this precedent.

    Replied on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:36pm
  381. Thats just wrong!!! This guy did them a huge favor and the state fucked him because of it

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:33pm
  382. I don’t respect anyone who tries to get money out of sperm donors.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:33pm
  383. This makes no sense

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:33pm
  384. Not right! Those “mother’s” are a disgrace and so is the state

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:34pm
  385. The mothers have nothing to do with it. They are on his side. it was the state that brought the charges, not them.

    Replied on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:36pm
  386. I don’t agree with this at all! Those are the people that shouldn’t even have children for being such stupid bitches.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:34pm
  387. What? I support the couple, but this is just wrong. Period. Maybe it’s just me.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:34pm
  388. The only way I could see this being problematic is if the child was old enough to sue for rights to know who their father is

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:34pm
  389. Hello it doesn’t take a licensed physician to inject semen into the vaginal canal

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:34pm
  390. Now let’s not gay bash. They are indeed, mothers. Jesus.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:34pm
  391. This is total bullshit!!!

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:35pm
  392. Wtf…really

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:35pm
  393. WTF? Kansas must really need $$

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:35pm
  394. “In this case, quite simply, the parties failed to perform to statutory requirement of the Kansas Parentage Act in not enlisting a licensed physician at some point in the artificial insemination process, and the parties’ self-designation of (Marotta) as a sperm donor is insufficient to relieve (Marotta) of parental right and responsibilities to the child,” Mattivi wrote.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:35pm
  395. That’s so stupid…

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:35pm
  396. I disagree with this.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:35pm
  397. This is about Punishing anyone who helps a same sex couple.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:36pm
  398. What

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:36pm
  399. The courts are wrong in this they are just trying to scare the guy. The women should of never gave up his name.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:36pm
  400. This is so wrong…

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:36pm
  401. America always facinates me when i read al ths stuff. Sum of its like a bad dream x

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:36pm
  402. This is so wrong. Someone did not follow thru and terminate and adopt

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:36pm
  403. This is such bullshit

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:36pm
  404. I just shared the article when it was posted by our local news! It makes me sad that I live in such a messed up state!!!

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:37pm
  405. I dont agree with this

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:37pm
  406. People. This is KANSAS! There is no such thing as a ‘legal’ Lesbian couple. In Kansas mentality, there is a mother and a father – they will pursue the ‘father’ because that is their legal recourse. This is Brownbackistan…it’s as close to Sharia Law as the US will allow.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:37pm
  407. This is proof the judges of AMerica are lost in their own ignorance!! The religious right will pounce on this one like flies on shit!!!

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:37pm
  408. Because they didn’t use a medical provider. You can’t relinquish your legal responsibility unless the child is adopted or in the process of being placed for adoption

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:37pm
  409. Yes but the mothers had to name him. They could of said I don’t know

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:37pm
  410. All the article is saying is that, at some point, they should have included a licensed professional… this even includes an atty to draw up or at least verify legality of their paperwork. The mothers arent even together anymore and the poor child is the one left wondering what happened. I completely get the states point but i do feel bad for the donor. He was just trying to help out. Its kind of scary that there are multiple versions of the signed agreement tho

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:37pm
  411. This is just plain wrong. My partner and I would never do such a thing. Soooo unfair to this man.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:37pm
  412. If this continues no man will ever donate sperm again….

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:38pm
  413. So the ONLY individual in this scenario who acted in good faith is the one being punished?!?
    He needs to take the state to court.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:38pm
  414. Have any of you even READ the article?? You are sitting here calling these woman names…unbelievable. The STATE..not the couple…are going after him to recoup hospital costs incurred for the birth by the couple. They even told the state that they didn’t know who the father was. The state found out by the paperwork they signed with the sperm donor.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:38pm
  415. What’s with people bashing the mothers?

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:38pm
  416. WOW….Nice to know…..geez….

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:38pm
  417. I guess they could just donate it back to him?

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:38pm
  418. Makes Me Wonder What Would Happen If Two Men Hired A Suragate Mother ! Would He Go After Her To?

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:39pm
  419. Don’t be upset with the mothers! They didn’t start this…the state did. Times are tough and they should be able to seek help without being shamed!
    The state is WRONG for its action.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:39pm
  420. Their definitely doing this to scare people from helping same sex couples have kids together

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:39pm
  421. They did not follow proper legal procedures, the biological father did not legally relinquish his rights. This just shows how necessary it is to check with a lawyer when considering artificial insemination.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:39pm
  422. Wow

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:39pm
  423. Sarah Douglas are you seeing this

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:40pm
  424. Absolutely ridiculous and bound to cause a ton of problems for couples looking for sperm donors in the future and all because a certified doctor wasn’t involved!

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:40pm
  425. Funny how this sort of thing hasn’t been in the news before. I haven’t seen anything about other states pursuing sperm donors for children whose mothers have been on state assistance. This is a dangerous precedence, and bodes ill for sperm banks across the nation.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:40pm
  426. I hope he is suing the state?

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:40pm
  427. That’s what you get when you do things half assed. Your stupidity comes around to bite you in it! All parties involved were in the wrong. And really, for something that important, don’t use craigslist! I disagree with the ruling, but that doesn’t change the fact that they disregarded the law.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:41pm
  428. The bible belt states are doing every underhanded trick in the book to deny the LGBTQ community the chance to be parents and create a loving family.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:41pm
  429. I work on this field. The only way I can see the state winning is if the donors name is listed as the father on the birth certificate. If your name is on then you are liable that is why they don’t put the name. There are contracts done to prevent this but unfortunately infertility law is new since science has advanced. This ruling is awful and I believe it will be overturned. I’m also appalled that this couple is not paying the funds back themselves. This man have them a child in good faith and a contract .. They are shameful.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:41pm
  430. This is wrong. A sperm donor is nothing more then a donor and had no responsibilities to the baby.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:42pm
  431. Seeking Kirk its not because it’s Kansas, it’s because of federal TANF regulations regarding support.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:42pm
  432. This is fucking ridiculous. He should not be held responsible for paying support for that baby!

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:42pm
  433. No !!!! this will hurt people who help lesbian and strait couples who need it the donor.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:42pm
  434. And sorry, but he isn’t a reputable sperm donor. He may have thought he was doing someone a favor, but sperm banks exist for a reason. To cover the ass of everyone involved.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:42pm
  435. Thats just ridiculous! He is not responsible for child support.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:43pm
  436. So ridiculous! Funny how some slut can say oh I don’t remember his name and all is good, but if someone helps a couple who wants a child they get punished for it! Too bad they didn’t just lie and say oh I went out and had a one night stand and didn’t know the guy. Even more sad that they would need to lie. :(

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:43pm
  437. another activist judge shoving it to us.

    Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 6:43pm