Marotta plans to appeal court's sperm donor decision
Marotta 'almost' ready to go to jail rather than pay back child care payments
Posted: January 23, 2014
By Steve Fry
THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL
William Marotta, the Topeka man who answered a Craigslist ad from a lesbian couple seeking sperm to conceive a child, will appeal Wednesday’s court ruling that labeled him a "presumptive father" and not a sperm donor.
"We have every intention to appeal," his attorney, Benoit M.J. Swinnen, said Thursday. Swinnen said the decision finding Marotta the presumptive father was a surprise to him, noting the key decision said his client didn't meet the definition of a sperm donor.
"If there is a definition, I haven't read it," Swinnen said.
Earlier Thursday, Marotta was interviewed by The Topeka Capital-Journal about the case that has raised national discussion. He was interviewed less than a day after Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi ruled he is the "presumptive father as a matter of law," not a sperm donor.
Whether Mattivi ruled in favor of Marotta saying he was a sperm donor or in favor of the state of Kansas saying he was a presumptive father, Marotta said it was expected the side getting the adverse ruling would appeal.
Marotta said thinks the Kansas Supreme Court will hear the case.
He said he "almost" is at the point he would go to jail rather than pay child support if the court ordered him to do so.
At the same time, Marotta knows the Kansas Department for Children and Families likely could garnish his wages to collect the child support.
Swinnen questioned whether the timing of the court decision had a political edge to it, noting there was an anti-abortion rally and discussion in the Legislature dealing with changing how Supreme Court justices are nominated and surrogate mothers.
"It begs the question of whether the decision was political," Swinnen said.
The Marotta story has attracted a lot of attention.
When the ruling was released Wednesday, Marotta said, "The first thing that crossed my mind is, 'Here we go again.' " He was referring to the groundswell of reaction when the case surfaced in 2013.
His coworkers and commenters on social media have been supportive, he said.
He has had positive responses from Australia and New Zealand, and a friend relayed a message from a Dane who said the physician requirement in Denmark would be a "joke."
Early on Thursday, CBS News called Marotta to schedule an interview to be aired Friday morning.
When told the Marotta case was discussed on "The View," a daily national TV talk show on Thursday, Marotta said, "It wouldn't surprise me."
The story has captured national attention because a same-sex couple was seeking the sperm and because the "small detail" that a physician didn't perform the artificial insemination as required by Kansas law, which didn't seem rational to some people, Marotta said.
Marotta said he wouldn't have a relationship with the girl born to one of the lesbian women, who is now 4, which was the agreement outlined in a contract he and the two women signed.
In her written decision, Mattivi said that because Marotta and the same-sex couple failed to secure the services of a physician during the artificial insemination process, he wasn’t entitled to the same protections given sperm donors under Kansas law.
Not using a physician during the artificial insemination of the mother is the heart of the ruling.
“Kansas law is clear that a 'donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor’s wife is treated in law as if he were not the birth father of a child thereby conceived, unless agreed to in writing by the donor and the woman,' ” Mattivi wrote.
“In this case, quite simply, the parties failed to conform to the statutory requirements 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 rights and responsibilities" to the child, the judge concluded.
The judge said she was bound by the "ordinary meaning and plain language of K.S.A. 23-2208(f), and (she) may not look the other way simply because the parties intended a different result than that afforded by the statute."
Marotta contended he was only a sperm donor to a same-sex couple seeking a child, but the Kansas Department for Children and Families argued he is a father who owes child support to his daughter.
Marotta delivered the sperm in containers three times to the couple.