“It is uncontroverted that the respondent did not seek any legal advice at the time,” states the ruling. “On March 30, 2009, the parties executed the Sperm Donor Contract at the home of A.B. and J.L.S.. Then, on three consecutive nights in April 2009, the respondent provided his semen to the women at their home, each time delivering it in a specimen cup.”
The insemination was successful, and the child was born in December 2009, according to the ruling. Before the birth, the biological mother applied for state assistance but did not list her lesbian partner as “a member of the household.”
The couple continued to live together until 2010, and then separated, the ruling said. In 2011, the biological mother again applied for state help for “food, cash and medical assistance” and revealed that the father of the child was “a donor,” said the ruling.
State services were discontinued in 2012 because the biological mother did not supply information on the anonymous donor, according to the ruling. It was then that she provided the contract to the state, which ordered reimbursement of previous services totaling $6,000.
That amount has since been reduced to $4,000, according to Marotta’s lawyer.
Swinnen has argued that the 1973 law cited in the ruling was outdated and designed to protect heterosexual couples using sperm donation from later interference from the biological father.
His said the current statute is unclear and has “the opposite intention.”
“Put yourself in America then,” he said. “It was designed to provide one avenue where there was certainty. If a woman obtains sperm provided to a physician, she can stop any claim of paternity by a donor.”
Marotta has said that the state should adopt a version of the Uniform Parentage Act, a set of rules for establishing parentage, which is recognized widely in other states. It declares equal rights for children regardless of their parents' marital status.
Once parentage is established, the court may make orders for child support, health insurance, child custody, visitation, name change, reimbursement of pregnancy and birth expenses, and restraining orders.
“In my mind if all the people in the state of Kansas put it to a vote,” Marotta told WIBW, “I would be out of this mess off the bat.”