A shaky argument against a nice guy with strong principles.
November, 2015
The child support lawsuit against William Marotta by the State of Kansas has been ongoing for three years now. It is a case that has caused grief to two women who only wanted to have a child of their own. The State of Kansas is trying to undo that family and it is using William as its pawn. The main support for the state's argument is their interpretation of a now infamous state law. It's the one about sperm donors and insemination by a physician. (The full text of that law is included in the letter in the link below.) William's lawyer, Charles Baylor, has countered the state with a support shaking argument. Mr. Baylor wrote an open letter explaining why the state is wrong in claiming that the couple and William didn't follow Kansas law. Since everyone believes the state's interpretation, this is a very important letter.
http://ksrights.wix.com/william-marotta-case#!open-letter/cuz7
Mobile link:
http://ksrights.wix.com/william-marotta-case#!mobile-lawyer-letter/c1hbq
Mr. Baylor’s interpretation differs greatly from the judge's! According to outside opinion, it is a reasonable, logical interpretation. The law was meant to protect both sperm donors and biological mothers from a custody lawsuit by the other party, but the judge and the state are using it to prosecute.
As far as William's lawyer has found, there has never been a case in which the state goes after the donor when both sperm donor and biological mom have agreed that the sperm donor will not be involved with the child. This case does indeed seem to be unique.
Now for the rest of the case.
The child was born to Jennifer Schreiner (biological mother) and her partner Angela Bauer. They were a financially stable, loving couple who had raised foster and adopted children. But they wanted to share a pregnancy and birth together. Some experts say there is no discrimination in this case, and that the state is following legal guidelines "when a child needs financial support..." But from whom does the child need support? The child's best interests have been argued in this case; the state maintains that a man she doesn't know is best suited to be her other parent. But her mother and that man (William) consider that Angela is the best choice to be her other parent. She is the only other parent the child has known. Angela is one of two very loving parents, who have given this child a good life.
While it's true that Angela fell on hard times, she still requested that the state bill her instead of William for state aid the child had received. Since she is the other parent, Angela wants to be responsible for the charges. But the state has refused to acknowledge her. To do so would have meant acknowledging a same-sex couple. William's friends argue that if Angela had been a man, all else being equal, the state would have accepted the offer of money and the suit against William wouldn't be happening. But then again, if Angela were a man, she would have been allowed to sign her name on the birth certificate with Jennifer's, and this suit would never have been started in the first place. When a person is treated as a non-entity, there is some discrimination there.
Some people have a problem with the whole issue of William's financial responsibility as a sperm donor. They have indicated that if he was willing to father a child, he should be willing to assume the costs of raising a child. But the state doesn’t seek support from the parents who give their children up for adoption. Then consider that if this child had been legally adopted by Angela (again, the state would allow that if she were a man, but not as a woman), there would not be a question as to whether or not he was responsible. The judge in this case has also stated that you can't sign away parental responsibility, but that is exactly what you do with adoption. If William were named the child's other parent, it would push Angela out, and would maintain the State's agenda that same sex couples can't be parents.
Forget about the contract and what someone didn't sign up for and what you can't contract away, William stands on his principles based on everyone's original intentions. Those intentions would be that Angela is the other parent to the child, that the family consists of the two women and their child, and William helped them accomplish that goal. He helped a couple form their ideal family life. Afterwards, they would stay on their separate paths, unless the child ever asked to see her biological father. This detail is one that no one ever mentions. Part of the agreement is that if the child should ask to see or talk to her biological father, William would willingly oblige. So in all respects, the child's well-being and happiness are being considered.
This suit is a travesty and William is bearing the brunt of it. In support of his principles, William has accumulated thousands in legal fees, because he will not roll over and accept the state's discriminatory actions regarding a loving couple and their child.
As a show of support, and to help him with his continuing legal fees, his friends have started a GoFundMe page at http://www.gofundme.com/kstramplesrights . Those who feel that this suit is wrong and would like to help William in his cause are encouraged to donate or to share this story.