top of page

Sperm donor hearings are postponed to April, June

Hearings to focus on paternity, artificial insemination questions

Posted: January 3, 2013

 

By Steve Fry

THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

 

The evidentiary hearing in the sperm donor case in Shawnee County District Court has been postponed from Tuesday to April.

 

Oral arguments will be heard in June.

 

In a civil case filed in October, the Kansas Department for Children and Families is seeking a court order forcing William Marotta, the donor, to be declared the father of a 3-year-old girl and to pay child support.

 

The department contends an agreement between Marotta and a lesbian couple seeking a sperm donation was moot because it didn't follow a state statute requiring a licensed physician to perform the artificial insemination.

In the agreement, Marotta relinquished parental rights and responsibilities.

 

The hearing had been scheduled for Tuesday, but the calendar of District Judge Mary Mattivi, who is handling the case, already was full.

 

The schedule now for the case is:

 

-- The evidentiary hearing will start at 9 a.m. April 9 and resume at 9 a.m. the next day. That hearing is expected to last one and one-half days

 

-- Oral arguments will be heard starting at 9 a.m. June 17 and are expected to last all day.

 

The judge hearing the case was changed Wednesday following research and discussion, acting Chief Judge Richard Anderson said. Lori Yockers, administrative hearing officer who deals with issues such as child support, earlier was to hear the case.

 

According to the Kansas Supreme Court rules, a district court judge must handle cases of disputed issues, such as the paternity question, Anderson said. An administrative hearing officer doesn't have that jurisdiction, Anderson said.

The crowd weighs in.
A few reader comments

"Gay and Lesbian couples have children and the children benefit from two parents that love each other and the child. It matters not what they have between their legs. Scientific facts back that up not your belief system."

 

"As a person that has sold sperm, I am very concerned about this case. If the child support is granted, I could end up having the state or individuals coming after me and I did not even get to have sex with any of the women."

 

"No good deed goes unpunished in Kansas...He did a good deed and now is facing heavy legal fees, even if he wins ....and 18 years of child support if he loses.  The state of Kansas should be ashamed, for coercing the mother, AND for filing a frivolous suit against the donor in an effort to escape supporting the child."

 

 

 

 

 

"If any couple has a child from a sperm donor, the sperm donor should be out of the picture. The couple is responsible for that child!"

 

"Once again the State rears it's ugly head and dictates to We the People."

 

"Why is this any different than if it was a man-woman relationship and one parent worked, the other stayed home.. .and then they split and the primary breadwinner in the relationship can no longer work? It is THEIR child, not his."

 

 

 

 

Feedback

 

If you have corrections or anything else, send it to:

 

jjsite2015@hotmail.com

​​​

© Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page