Marotta, biological mother take stand in Ross hearing
Hearing will determine what is best for child
Posted: November 18, 2014
By Ann Marie Bush
THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL
It took only two hours Tuesday morning for attorneys to argue whether genetic testing of William Marotta is in the best interest of a girl he allegedly fathered through a sperm donation.
The Ross hearing was slated to last two days — Tuesday and Thursday — in Shawnee County District Court. Because no expert witnesses were called, the hearing only lasted about two hours.
In a Ross hearing, the court determines whether it is in the child’s best interest to set aside a presumption of paternity in favor of a third party.
Numerous attorneys were in the courtroom, including Marotta’s attorney, Benoit Swinnen; an attorney for the biological mother, Jennifer Coop, formerly known as Jennifer Schreiner; an attorney for the 4-year-old girl; at least two attorneys representing the Kansas Department for Children and Families; and an attorney for Angela Bauer, who was Coop’s partner at the time the child was born.
The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed a case against Marotta in October 2012 seeking to have him declared the father of a girl born to Coop in 2009.
Marotta opposed the action, saying he didn’t intend to be the child’s father, and that he had signed a contract waiving his parental rights and responsibilities while agreeing to donate sperm in a plastic cup to Coop and Bauer. Marotta contacted the women after they placed a Craigslist ad seeking a sperm donor.
Shawnee County District Judge Mary Mattivi listened as Marotta took the stand first.
Swinnen gave depositions taken in the spring of 2013 to Mattivi, and then updated the court by asking Marotta additional questions.
Marotta repeated “no” over and over to several questions, such as “Have you had any contact with the minor child?”
Swinnen also asked whether Marotta had formed plans to be involved with the child.
“No,” Marotta said again.
Do you have a desire to form a parental relation with the child? Swinnen asked.
“No,” Marotta repeated.
Marotta also said he hadn’t been asked to provide any financial aid to the child and he hasn’t taken a test to determine paternity. However, Marotta said if it was medically necessary for the child, he would be willing to submit to genetic testing.
DCF attorney Melissa Johnson asked Marotta what his reaction would be if the court found him to be the father. Marotta said he would contest it.
“I have no plans on being in this child’s life,” he told the court.
Coop, who has since married a man, was the second person to take the stand.
She said a typical week for the child is to attend preschool and stay with Coop and her husband Monday through Thursday. The child then goes with Bauer from Thursday evening through Sunday.
“(Bauer) is a parent to (the girl),” Coop said. “She financially takes care of (the girl). She emotionally takes care of (the girl). We make decisions together.”
Coop said she and Bauer attend parent-teacher conferences and doctor’s appointments together with the girl.
On March 8, 2013, the two women formed a parenting plan and submitted it to the court to “establish guidelines” between them, Coop told Swinnen.
“(The girl) will tell you she came from my tummy and Angie’s heart,” Coop said.
If Marotta was forced to play a role in the little girl’s life, the girl would “be confused as to who this stranger is,” Coop said.
The state didn’t call anyone to testify.
Swinnen said he will file a supplemental brief on whether Marotta is a presumptive father or an alleged father. Swinnen and all attorneys but the ones representing the state say Marotta is an alleged father.
Mattivi in January ruled Marotta was the presumptive father.
Swinnen has 30 days to file the brief. After that, the judge will issue an opinion in the Ross hearing.
“I think this case is slowly working its way to a resolution,” Swinnen said.
He said the Kansas Supreme Court ruling on a gay marriage case may help “facilitate the case.”