Appeal in sperm donor case will have to wait
Judge denies request for certification of her ruling
Posted: March 12, 2014
By Tim Hrenchir
THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL
William Marotta must wait to appeal the Shawnee County District Court ruling declaring him the father of a 4-year-old girl born after he donated sperm to a Topeka same-sex couple.
Shawnee County District Judge Mary Mattivi on Wednesday denied a motion by Marotta’s attorney, Benoit Swinnen, asking Mattivi to certify her ruling now so the case can be appealed immediately.
The decision leaves Marotta unable to appeal until the district court has reached a final judgment on matters involved in the case, including how much child support Marotta is required to pay.
Swinnen said he was disappointed with the decision.
Mattivi’s ruling said Kansas law required the case, for certification, to meet provisions of a specific, three-pronged test. She concluded Swinnen’s motion didn’t meet two of those prongs requiring that such an order “involve a controlling question of law” and “substantial ground for difference of opinion.”
Mattivi issued a summary judgment Jan. 22 in the case in favor of the Kansas Department for Children and Families.
The department filed the case in October 2012 seeking to have Marotta, a Topekan, declared the father of a girl Jennifer Schreiner bore in 2009.
Marotta said he didn’t intend to be the child’s father and signed a contract waiving his parental rights and responsibilities while agreeing to donate sperm in a plastic cup to Schreiner and Angela Bauer, who was then her lesbian partner.
Marotta contacted the women after they placed an ad seeking a sperm donor on Craigslist. Mattivi concluded their contract was moot because those involved didn’t follow a Kansas statute enacted in 1994, which the state says requires a licensed physician to perform the artificial insemination in cases involving sperm donors.
The statute, KSA 23-2208(f), says, “The donor of [filtered word] 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.”
A status conference in the case is scheduled for 11 a.m. Friday in district court.