The Oklahoman

Assisted reproducti­on is focus of Kansas case

- BY HEATHER HOLLINGSWO­RTH

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The case of a Kansas sperm donor being sued by the state for child support underscore­s a confusing patchwork of aging laws that govern assisted reproducti­on in the United States and often lead to litigation and frustratio­n among would-be parents.

Complex questions about parental responsibi­lity resurfaced late last year, as Kansas officials went after a Topeka man who answered a Craigslist ad from a lesbian couple seeking a sperm donor. Because no doctor was involved in the artificial inseminati­on, the state sought to hold William Marotta financiall­y responsibl­e for the child when the women split up and one of them sought public assistance. A hearing is set for April. Many states haven’t updated their laws to address the evolution of family structures — such as same-sex families, single women conceiving with donated sperm or artificial inseminati­ons performed without a doctor’s involve ment. At-home inseminati­on kits are inexpensiv­e, and obtaining sperm from a friend, or even a donor met over the Internet, allows women to avoid medical costs that generally aren’t covered by insurance.

Laws called outdated

But experts say that as case law changes, families put themselves at risk by failing to seek legal advice.

The first wave of assisted reproducti­on laws was based on model legislatio­n from 1973. These statutes typically call for, among other things, the involvemen­t of a medical provider in order for a sperm donor to be freed of parental responsibi­lity.

“They put a whole bunch of what they thought were reasonable restrictio­ns on the process to encourage people to do it responsibl­y,” said Steve Snyder, a Minnesota family law attorney and chairman of an assisted reproducti­on committee for the American Bar Associatio­n. But, he said, the problem is that if people “don’t fall under the strict terms of the law, then the law doesn’t protect you.”

As a result, the doctor involvemen­t requiremen­t and other stipulatio­ns were dropped in 2000 when the model legislatio­n, the Uniform Parentage Act, was updated. The new language has been enacted in nine states, including Oklahoma. But Kansas’ law, enacted in 1994, was based on the earlier model.

Kansas isn’t alone in grappling with assisted reproducti­on issues. In Indiana, an appeals court ruled last week that a man who divorced his wife must pay child support for their son and daughter, even though the children were conceived by artificial inseminati­on using sperm donated by another man. Still another case in Indiana involved a man who was ordered in 2010 to pay child support for only one of the two children resulting from his sperm donations.

“The only way to avoid these situations is to change the law to catch up with the technology and what people are actually doing in assisted reproducti­on,” Snyder said.

Change is unlikely

Sperm donation and parental rights may sound like a relatively niche sector in the legal arena, but updating laws has been a challenge, and some like the rules just the way they are.

Kansas’ state Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce, a conservati­ve Republican, said he doubts legislator­s will or should consider making changes.

“It tells everybody don’t do stupid things on Craigslist. It’s kind of common sense,” he said. “If you’re going to create another life, even if it’s a good intention, that’s a heck of a responsibi­lity, and it’s one that precedes any sort of state action.”

In the 2010 Indiana case, a woman who used a friend’s sperm to conceive two children sought public assistance after she and her lesbian partner separated. County officials wanted to collect child support from the donor.

A state appeals court ultimately ruled that an agreement entered into before the first child’s birth freed the donor from financial responsibi­lity for that child. But the donor was found to be financiall­y responsibl­e for the second child, because the agreement didn’t cover subsequent children.

‘It’s not fair’

Mikki Morrissett­e, a mother of two who didn’t use a doctor for her artificial inseminati­ons, once found herself asked to identify her donor while seeking state-subsidized health insurance in Minnesota after moving there from New York City.

She refused and was denied the coverage.

“I know a lot of other women around the country who have used a known donor who have run into similar problems,” said Morrissett­e, who was written five books, including “Choosing Single Motherhood: The Thinking Woman’s Guide.”

She said the same request isn’t made of adoptive parents or when an anonymous donor is used: “It’s not fair.”

 ?? AP FILE PHOTO ?? Kansas sperm donor William Marotta is being sued by the state of Kansas to pay child support after providing sperm to a same-sex couple who split up. Experts believe Marotta put himself in a precarious legal position by getting involved in a lesbian...
AP FILE PHOTO Kansas sperm donor William Marotta is being sued by the state of Kansas to pay child support after providing sperm to a same-sex couple who split up. Experts believe Marotta put himself in a precarious legal position by getting involved in a lesbian...

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States