Attorney: Marotta not the father in the 'unusual' circumstances of sperm donor case
Man who answered Craigslist ad opposes finding as father
Posted: January 4, 2015
By Steve Fry
THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL
William Marotta provided the sperm for a child, but he isn't a father in the circumstances of the Craigslist paternity case, his attorney contends.
Marotta, who gave sperm to a same-sex couple so they could have a child, “is not, under the unusual circumstances of this case, the father of the minor child,” Marotta’s attorney wrote, contesting a Shawnee County District Court ruling ordering him to undergo genetic testing.
Marotta attorney Benoit Swinnen filed a brief on whether Marotta is a presumptive father or an alleged father. Marotta answered a Craigslist ad posted by a couple seeking sperm to parent a child.
Swinnen said no evidence existed “to support a finding that genetic testing is in the best interests of the child as was clearly articulated in the closing statements of all parties.”
Swinnen filed the brief on Dec. 19. The deadline for the Kansas Department for Children and Families was Friday, but by mid-afternoon, the department hadn't filed anything. Attorneys for the couple — Jennifer Coop and Angela Bauer — and for the child have until Jan. 16 to respond to the Marotta filing.
On Nov. 18, a Ross hearing was conducted in Shawnee County District Court. In this Ross hearing, the court has to determine whether it is in the child’s best interest to set aside a presumption of paternity in favor of a third party.
The hearing’s issue was whether genetic testing of Marotta would be in the best interest of a girl he allegedly fathered through a sperm donation.
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 — formerly known as Jennifer Schreiner — in 2009.
During the Nov. 18 hearing before Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi, 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, Coop’s partner at the time.
Marotta contacted the women after they placed a Craigslist ad seeking a sperm donor.
Following the Ross hearing and the filings, Mattivi is expected to issue a ruling in the Ross hearing. Besides Swinnen, attorneys in the courtroom during the Ross hearing were an attorney for Coop; an attorney for the 4-year-old girl; at least two attorneys representing the Kansas Department for Children and Families; and an attorney for Bauer. When testifying on Nov. 18, Marotta repeated “no” to questions such as whether he had any contact with the minor child, whether he had plans to be involved with the child, and whether he desired to form a parental relationship with the child.
Marotta also said he hadn’t been asked to provide financial aid to the child and he hasn’t taken a test to determine paternity.
Coop, who has since married a man, testified the child attends preschool and stays with Coop and her husband Monday through Thursday, then with Bauer from Thursday evening through Sunday.
Bauer is a parent and financially supports the child, Coop said. On March 8, 2013, the two women formed a parenting plan and submitted it to the court to “establish guidelines” between them, Coop testified.
In January 2014, Mattivi issued a ruling saying Marotta is the presumptive father of the child and is subject to paying child support.
Key to the ruling was that, because Marotta and the couple didn't secure the services of a physician during the artificial insemination, Marotta wasn't entitled to the protections given to other sperm donors under the Kansas Parentage Act.
Before the January 2014 ruling, Swinnen contested the Kansas statute, saying it didn’t specifically direct that a physician perform the artificial insemination.
The state has sought to have Marotta declared the child’s father so he can be responsible for public assistance paid by the state, as well as future child support.