It Takes A Village – Until it Costs – The Nanny “State” Is Not Willing To Be Your Father if Your Two Moms Decide To Split…

This is actually a natural outcropping from progressive ideology running amock.  IVF Same Sex partners split up, co-parent, seek state assistance for their IVF born child, and the State tracks down the sperm donor for child support compliance….

KANSAS – A Kansas sperm donor who was ordered to pay child support for the baby he helped a lesbian couple conceive plans to fight back in court, and suggested he might be a victim of bias against same-sex parenting.

William Marotta told he might never have agreed to provide sperm to Angela Bauer and her former partner, Jennifer Schreiner, had he known the legal morass that awaited him after responding to the women’s Craigslist ad for a donor in March 2009. The Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) recently filed a child support claim against Marotta after the couple filed for state assistance this year, leading the department to demand they provide the donor’s name so it could collect.

Angela Bauer and former partner Jennifer Schreiner (right)

“I have a hunch part of the reason this is going this way is because of people’s feelings toward same-sex couples,” Marotta said in an exclusive interview with “I can’t help but feel this is somewhat of a political issue.”

The 46-year-old machinist said he received notice in late October that he was being targeted by state officials to pay child support after the couple — who parted ways in 2010 but still co-parent their eight children ranging in age from 3 months to 25 years — were ordered by DCF officials to provide the sperm donor’s name. State officials argued that if the women did not identify the donor, the agency would deny health benefits due to withheld information. (read more of the story)

This entry was posted in A New America, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to It Takes A Village – Until it Costs – The Nanny “State” Is Not Willing To Be Your Father if Your Two Moms Decide To Split…

  1. lovemygirl says:

    And their solution will be… To make same Sex marriage the law of the land.


  2. ottawa925 says:

    Call me an old koot but I’m sorry … I don’t go for all the twisting and turning to have a baby BS. In the old days if a regular married couple couldn’t have a baby .. ppl would say it was God’s will. That God wanted you to adopt .. and give a home to a child whose parents don’t want it, or whose parents died. I can’t say whether it’s God’s will, but I don’t go for all the … I’ll take your egg and do this, and then you give me your sperm and we’ll do that. And I’ll put your egg in this person and take your sperm and put over here. I just don’t go for trying to force the square peg in a round hole routine. There are plenty of children that need loving parents. So you don’t pass on your genes. So what? Genes like sex isn’t everything in this world. Look what genes got us with Obama? (sigh). Any how I see that SD picked up on this story and it goes to show how the LAW has not quite caught up with all the variables that are going to manifest themselves via gay marriage and kids, and straights or gays creating a Frankenstein environment in a flailing attempt to have kids. Lord have mercy how these kids are going to be affected by all this is hard to fathom. Every kid .. I don’t care who they are … ultimately wants to know who their Mother and Father is. These ppl are creating a scenario where …. awe God … I can’t even contemplate the effects. Oh now let’s get a test tube and put this in it and then …. I can’t … I can’t. A kid doesn’t want to think they were created in a test tube !!!! They want to think of a Mother and a Father that love each other and through that love … they, the child, came about. So pure. So simple. The way it was meant to be … from day one. (bigger sigh). Then you have ppl who have kids who NEVER should have had kids. They abuse them, neglect them, and so on. There are some things even a King Solomon doesn’t have the wisdom for in this world.


    • Sharon says:

      I am also an old koot. When there gets to be enough of us, maybe we can knock some sense into some folks? Probably not.


    • TandCrumpettes says:

      I guess I’m an old koot too!

      I shudder to think how my daughter will be the only kid in her class whose parents are still married to each other, were married for years before having her, and she was planned. OH, and how her father and I are closer than ever and love each other so much more than before. That tends to happen when you do it “right.”

      I’ve thought about what I am going to tell her when she asks where babies come from. Oh, it was easy when I was a kid. When a mommy and a daddy love each other very much, the stork flies down and blah blah blah…

      When I was a bit older, a mommy and daddy love each other very much and God puts a baby in my mommy’s tummy….

      And a bit older…the real story.

      Still, in all three stories, there was a mommy and a daddy who loved each other very much. They lived in the same house, probably have been together since high school or college, married after they got their education, the typical ideal situation.

      Even in our movies and “very special episode” television shows, divorce and all was treated as the “saddest thing EVER!” But what was really neat was that the parents always said something to the kids about “I’ll always love your daddy/mommy…”

      Anyway, my child doesn’t know yet how unique her situation really is. I suppose I’ll tell her the story about “a mommy and daddy who love each other very much” but…UGH…what about the other kids? What in the world are they going to tell her based on their own parents?

      We don’t have much IVF going on here, but I do think the story will begin something like, “When a mommy and a daddy go to the same bar to do belly shots….”


    • libby says:

      If Octomom thought like us, we would have never heard of her.


    • michellc says:

      I guess I’m an old koot as well.

      I could say more but then I’d be labeled a hater or religious whacko.


    • Menagerie says:

      The teachings of my Catholic faith give good guidance on this, I believe. Morally I believe it is wrong to play God. Period. Now we are seeing the consequences of doing so in real world ways like this. Sadly, episodes like this won’t make people wake up and question the real issues behind the action of interfering with life. Society has become too addicted to the “I am entitled to what I want” mentality.


  3. Inkraven says:

    It’s interesting that the article frames the story around a gay couple and whatever “backlash”, but that’s not what’s really going on here. It’s common practice (and may be federally mandated, I can’t recall ATM) that when an unmarried mother files for welfare on behalf of her child, the state goes after the father for reimbursement. These laws were designed to target “deadbeat dads” and those who would not (or could not) support their children, but instead the Kansas government is using it as a beatstick to extort money from someone.


    • Sharon says:

      “….instead the Kansas government is using it as a beatstick to extort money”

      Good point, I think. A similar situation would be if there were an adoption, let’s say the adoptive father died to pay–then would they go after the biological father? And if not, why not? It would make as much sense. Letting them frame this a gay/”divorce” issue lets them pretend they’re not doing what they’re doing–extortion.


      • libby says:

        If this was about backlash, then the lesbians would be hurt by this somehow, but instead they targeted a MAN (this is about the government’s intent to make more beatdead dads) and forced him to pay for a child he gave up for adoption.


      • kathyca says:

        In the case of adoption, it’s because the bio father would have to have had his parental rights terminated. In that case, the child would get the adoptive father’s SS because s/he would be legally his child.

        The “donor” issue would already have been addressed in the context of IVF, etc. So I don’t think it’s a question of the laws not having caught up to the donor situation — regardless of the same-sex relationship context. One of the articles says that Marotta gave up his parental rights by agreement. You can’t do that (at least in the State’s I’m familiar with) for exactly this reason. Sadly, too many people would voluntarily give up their parental rights precisely so they have no support obligations. That’s why the court has to formally terminate parental rights. I’m guessing that wasn’t done in this case and was required.


        • Sharon says:

          Ok…thank you kathyca–that helps. Our son adopted two children (from dil’s first marriage) and I certainly remember the court hearing we attended where letters were read from their bio father in which he relinquished rights, and the judge then made the ruling.

          ADD: Oh, of course he had signed paperwork, too. What I remember is the letters….it struck me as sickening that a working father in his right mind could so cavalierly say, “Yup, it’s fine with me–want nuttin’ do with them….that other man should be their Dad–fine with me….” and it was obvious that his primary reason was to get out from financial obligation. His son and daughter were about 5 and 8 at the time.


  4. 22tula says:

    Jeff Nyquist interviews author and researcher Stephen Baskerville about the divorce industry and the destruction of the family in the United States.


  5. boutis says:

    This goes into another area also. Why are males so willing to donate sperm and not raise their own offspring? I know that there are biological arguments based upon evolution and all that. We just had a article about fatherless children and the problems that society has with the aftermath of this irresponsibility. What is so different with a couple of women bringing eight children into the world with no father around than the teenage mother who does it. I have to think some issues like selfishness and hoarding are at issue with the mothers, and ego with a male who thinks he can create offspring with no responsibility. All of the adults convinced themselves they were doing something good for their selfish reasons. Seldom do these people think about what impact their own needs have on children. The state is making them responsible for what they have done.


    • gretchenone says:

      + 1,000.

      People have become divorced (pun intended) from the consequences of their immoral behavior. In fact, they do not even realize the immorality of ‘donating’ sperm without thought for the eventual repercussions in the lives of all involved (not least of which is the child(ren). The women want all of the recognition of a natural biological relationship without thinking of the moral and financial fallout that comes with that. Those gals, on principle, should not have given up the sperm donor’s name, but they caved in order to get money from the state. They had to know what would happen, and now they’re crying foul.

      Regardless of the man’s intent, the result is the same as a “one night stand” and that is how the law sees it. There’s about as much thought going into a one night stand as a sperm donor. The result is the same — a fatherless child. And it’s pretty clear that the state doesn’t want to put up with that.

      Men and women should stop monkeying around with the definition of marriage and family. Man’s inventions never work out as well as God’s plan.


  6. Coast says:

    OK then….guess I’ll knock “sperm donor” off my to-do list. 🙂


  7. Sal Paradise says:

    Maybe the Mayans meant 2013?


  8. Menagerie says:

    I have to wonder what action would be taken if this were two gay fathers. Would they go after the egg donor?


  9. Chip Bennett says:

    Others have touched on the implications of the moral decline of our country; rather than repeat what they’ve said, I want to look at this story from a different angle: the legal implications of living in a society that has eschewed Christian principles in favor of secularism. Either we have a moral society, or we have a secular society; society cannot have it both ways.

    The sperm-donation relationship between the male and the homosexual couple was a contractual one. It was, legally speaking, a business transaction. If we had a moral society, the sperm-donation contractual transaction would never have taken place. But since we have a secular society, such contractual transaction is permitted; therefore, the man bears no legal responsibility for the IVF conception, or for the decision of the two women to create and to raise a child. The two women are the legal guardians of the IVF-conceived child; therefore, the two women are legally and financially responsible for raising that child.

    What of all the other IVF sperm-donation conceptions that end in eventual divorce? Does the state go after the sperm donor when the parents are heterosexual?

    This is also yet another example of the androgyny built into the legal system regarding men’s rights with respect to their offspring. Men are legally and financially responsible for children they help conceive, but have no legal right to prevent (or to induce) the mother to abort that child. An IVF sperm donor to a homosexual couple has no legal rights with respect to the raising of the child he helped conceive, but is found legally and financially responsible for the child if the homosexual couple separates.

    (And just so I’m not misunderstood: I favor prohibiting abortion for all cases except for imminent risk to the life of the mother. But as long as abortions are legal, then I support equal protection under the law for the fathers of conceived children.)


  10. howie says:

    It took a village full of idiots to get us where we are today.


  11. czarowniczy says:

    The sperm/egg trade and same-sex marriage has created a fertile new area for civil lawyers. One of the big problems with legislators at all levels creating new laws is they do a knee-jerk write without an eye to the possible consequences. I attribute this to the mediocre lawyers going to work for the legislators while the really good lawyers are all perched on branches outside the various legislatures’ doors waiting to pounce on the legal effluent. I think that Kansas is just looking for a way to prevent state from having to pay for this twisted mess. Until the legal eagles manage to clean up the legal mess they’ve made by redefining traditional societal roles the bureaucrats will have to use old laws in new and exciting ways.


  12. boutis says:

    Good Lord. They did a amateur DIY impregnation without a doctor, clinic or apparently a lawyer to draw up the contract (they made it up themselves perhaps). It is no wonder that the state went after them. I will not speculate any further due to crossing the line into really bad taste.


    • cajunkelly says:

      Did you notice the picture posted by one of the women showing that she’s now in a relationship with a man?

      Ain’t sayin anything else.


  13. oriana88 says:

    WHAT a mess the Pollyanna secularists have made—as usual—by condoning each and every (especially the childish) “adult’s” whim: “I want what I want and I want it now!” This short-sighted, selfish, immature, and IMMORAL situation would be laughable if it weren’t so serious.

    I have very little sympathy for the so-called adults, who treat the unfortunate children, of their selfishness, like chattel: sort of like modern-day slavery, really. No kids have a choice about who their parents are—but those born to their own, married, committed, biological MOM and DAD fare much better, by all indicators, than children who live with non-related adults: those children are far more likely to suffer abuse—emotional, physical, sexual—than children living with their own, married, biological parents. To deliberately make the inferior, ultra risky choice to separate a child from one of his/her biological parents, from birth, is astonishingly selfish and bone-headed. IMO, the self-centred dupes (yes, they are!) who actually do this and the deluded idiots who support them—virtually all of our elites in the media, academia, mainline Protestant churches, legislatures, courts, etc.—are, in effect, guilty of child abuse: children are not chattel, to be created and used as pawns, in order to indulge the whims of the half-witted adults in their lives—and that includes our cultural elites (mentioned above). That these powerful sectors of our society believe that, by supporting adult, sexual license, they’re ushering in a new era of openness and justice, rather than unnecessary misery for countless children, demonstrates how utterly deluded and selfish they are.

    Another astonishing aspect of this travesty: the majority of “folks” who condone fiddling with human nature and biology seem to be committed “greenies”. How ironic that they wish to preserve the natural habitat of such species as smelt in California—thus, ruining whole farming communities—while they have no interest at all in preserving the natural habitat of human beings. Pssst, you idiots: we’re also part of nature!

    It’s irony upon irony with such totalitarians, who are absolutely immune to either a sense of humour or irony. Honestly, these moral pygmy elitists seem to be actually only semi-human, as they lack such mature attributes as humility, self-knowledge, self-sacrifice, and the ability to discern. “I want what I want and I want it now!” is their motto.

    How about, “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things”? (1 Corinthians 13:11) Oh, wait . . . our elites have put away such childish things as the Bible and belief in an all powerful, all knowing, all loving God, who has exacting but wise expectations for us.

    It seems that our powerful, increasingly regulatory elites have arrogantly decided to maul and mangle, if not banish, God’s laws. The fallout is and will be of Flood-like proportions. Kyrie eleison.


  14. MuayTyson says:

    Please allow me to play the Devil’s advocate. Is there a racial component to this story? We have a White lesbian couple and an obviously Liberal White male donner. Illegitimacy rates in the Black community are over 70% yet the state to my knowledge has never threatened to with hold services to Black women who do not divulge the fathers of thier children. Here is a perfect example:
    Has anyone heard of social services with holding services in a case other than this one?


    • Cyrano says:

      Good point, Muay! I have not heard of any other case where social services withheld services, which is my main complaint in life. It’s just too easy to claim need, and get aid from a government far, far away. Instead of giving people checks, we should give them jobs. That would eliminate 90% of all claims.


      • John VI says:

        i dont know why the mother gave up the name. “Unknown” father is a staple of maury povich’s talkshow on a weekly basis. hell, he has had some women on that can drag out a “whos the daddy” game for dozens of episodes! The threat must have been staggering. Wonder if the case worker is liable for extortion or blackmail charges?


  15. Cyrano says:

    As a gay man (Cyrano) I resent the fact that “Gay” has come to mean homosexual, and I am somewhat surprised that so many on this site give up the word so easily. But, now to the subject of responsibility. The sperm donor did not impregnate anyone, so should not be held accountable for the child. However, the laboratory did impregnate someone, and should be held accountable. It’s really that simple. Who put the sperm into the vagina? Think about it.


    • Cyrano says:

      Oh No! There was no lab! They just winged it! He is the father and is responsible.


    • czarowniczy says:

      As a tree farmer who also sells firewood I’ve become resentful that the word faggot has been co-opted…oh never mind. I think whoever touched it last should pay, who was left standing when the music stopped?


  16. 8 adopted children? Obviously this gay couple made their living by free-loading off of welfare dependence and fraud by adopting so many children. This guy should have been a little smarter when dealing with such “things”. But truly , the state needs to make these two cheats pay for this child(who were /are the legal parents), rather than the donor. Typical of welfare free-loaders and libtards to want things both ways for themselves, and someone else to pay.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s