Sperm donor ruling certified; Marotta to appeal
Man who donated to couple expects Kansas Supreme Court to hear appeal
Posted: January 27, 2014
By Steve Fry
THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL
The attorney for William Marotta, who answered a Craigslist ad from a same-sex couple seeking sperm to impregnate one of the women, is asking a judge to certify her ruling so it can be appealed.
The motion was filed late Friday.
On Wednesday, Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi issued the ruling. The civil lawsuit was filed in October 2012 by the Kansas Department for Children and Families seeking payment of support to the child by Marotta.
If Mattivi certifies her ruling, that would allow Marotta to immediately appeal the ruling, Benoit M.J. Swinnen said in the motion. Swinnen represents Marotta.
In seeking certification, Swinnen said this matter has "important social implications," and earlier court filings evidenced the existence of "substantial ground for differences of opinions" on applying the statute dealing with the presumed paternity of a child.
The judge's ruling could impact "many other families," Swinnen wrote.
"It is without question than an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation should the appellate court find for (Marotta)," Swinnen said.
When appealed, Marotta expects the Kansas Supreme Court to hear that appeal.
The key point in the ruling is whether a physician artificially inseminated the mother.
On Wednesday, the judge ruled that because Marotta and a same-sex couple didn't have a physician artificially inseminate one of the women, Marotta wasn’t entitled to the same protections given sperm donors under Kansas law.
Marotta delivered the sperm in cups over three days so the couple — not a doctor — could inseminate the birth mother.
Kansas law requires a doctor to take part in the insemination.
Later versions of other states' parentage acts don't have the language requiring a physician's participation.
"The Kansas law is stuck behind the times," Marotta said the day after the ruling was issued. "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," Mattivi concluded.
In issuing the ruling, Mattivi said she was bound "by the ordinary meaning and plain language" of the Kansas Parentage Act and couldn't "look the other way simply because the parties intended a different result than that afforded by the statute."
As of Monday, the case next will be in court on March 14 when a status conference will be conducted. At some point, the two sides will litigate whether Marotta will pay past and future child care for the youngster.