Title. . Wednesday, Jan- 'glug tairy. Court: is h] father, not merely w, sperm donor By Steve Fry slave. ' com MARCH 2013 FILE PHOTO/ THE CAPITALISE/ NAL A Shaw Title Wednesday Jan- 'glug tairy Court: is h] father not merely w sperm donor By Steve Fry slave ' com MARCH 2013 FILE PHOTO/ THE CAPITALISE/ NAL A Shaw
Login or register


Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
Wednesday, Jan- 'glug tairy.
Court: is h] father, not merely w, sperm donor
By Steve Fry
slave. ' com
A Shawnee County District ruled Wednesday that William Marietta is more than a sperm donor, But is a father required to pay child support.
24 comments my
Latest by 47 sec ago
A Topeka man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple is the presumptive father to a baby one of the woman bore and is subject to paying child support., a Shawnee County District
ruled Wednesday.
In her written decision, District Court Judge Mary Matti's said that because William Martita and the couple failed to secure the services of a physician during the artificial
insemination process, he wasn' t entitled to the same protections given other sperm donors under Kansas law.
Kansas law is clear that a ‘donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donors 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,' wrote.
In this case; quite simply, the parties failed to conform to the statutory requirements of the Kansas Parentage Act in not enlisting a licensed physician at some point in the artificial
insemination process, and the parties' of (Martita) as a sperm donor is insufficient to relieve (Martita) of parental rights and responsibilities" to the child, the judge
contended he was only a sperm donor to a couple seeking a child, but the Kansas Department for Children and Families argued he is a father who owes child
support to his daughter. The girl is at years old.
The requirement to include a licensed physician in the artificial insemination dates to 1973 when the Uniform Parentage Act came into being and was adopted by Kansas, said.
The judge noted it is "" that the semen in this case wasn' t provided to a licensed physician.
Views: 759 Submitted: 01/23/2014
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (4)
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
#4 - quiescat
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/23/2014) [-]
at some point i understand why the court did what it did. it sounds like he just had sex with her, or at very they went at least turkey baster level instead of full on doctor. likely to save money. as i understand that **** is crazy expensive. but i am going to take a wild guess that with out something in writing, or a real witness to this effect there is no proof, the fact that any of this took place as any thing other then a sexual act that ended in pregnancy is not something that can be proven in court. so now he just needs the female in question to show up to court agreeing to the termination of his rights as well as responsibility . in the end this comes down to bad ******* paper work really what would you expect with some kid running around with 1/2 your DNA and you got nothing better then Heresay to back it up your claim how stupid can you get
User avatar #2 - istartedthewar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/23/2014) [-]
Another reason why living here in Kansas sucks.
#1 - friedgreenpomatoes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/23/2014) [-]
This **** does not fly.