Government Suing Sperm Donor For Child Support

Lawyer Claiming Gender Discrimination

SHAWNEE, KS – The state of Kansas is suing William Marotta for child support to pay for a child of a same-sex couple who split up. The state of Kansas is demanding the man pay for support, even after signing away rights to the child contractually 5 years ago.

The government is claiming that a state certified doctor was not used to perform the insemination and that Marotta signed a private contract that the state wishes to void. The judge hearing the case is being asked not to go to a full trial by both sides, and a “summary judgment” should be handed down within 60 days.

READ: “Christians” refuse to tip their gay server. 

Marotta does not dispute being the child’s father, and claims that the attempt for a DNA test from the child’s attorney is a waste of time. Timothy Keck from the Kansas Department of Children and Families claims that the couple used a catheter and syringe without a state licensed doctor present to administer the donor’s sperm. They are citing statute KSA 23-2208(f), which Marotta pointed out doesn’t give a specific directive that insemination must be performed by a physician.

WATCH: Cop Brings AR-15 to School For Safety Talk, Kid Fires It, 2 Injured (VIDEO)

“This is not a case about a sperm donor contract, it’s about child support,” Keck said. “[Marotta] cannot get out of his support obligations because he didn’t follow state law. The contract they drew up means nothing.”

Marotta has seen the child twice but never identified himself as her father. His attorney claims that the state is using him to make a point about traditional family values. “Seeking only a male as a father is discriminating on the basis of gender,” the lawyer said.


Mario Lawrence October 26, 2013 at 5:46 pm

Can’t wait to hear how this goes.

If only it were so easy for traditional couples to throw the burden of child support on an outside party.

Betty Eyer October 26, 2013 at 5:47 pm

Sigh. The only outcome of this will be to make men unwilling to be sperm donors. How is that pro life or pro freedom?

Tina Thomas October 28, 2013 at 2:34 am

I doubt that. I think it will result in them making a law requiring that prospective parents use a sperm bank so the donor remains anonymous.

Matt Holloway October 30, 2013 at 4:47 pm

Reducing their freedom of choice… What if the Couple want a specific donor that is willing? You are wanting to deny their rights?

ronwator October 26, 2013 at 5:50 pm

Where are the Lesbians and Feminist marching to be treated with equality on this issue? Oh that’s right equality only matters when it’s to the benefit of women. I forgot.

Tina Thomas October 28, 2013 at 2:32 am

I don’t think it will fly. I don’t know of any law that says anyone has to use a fertility clinic or certified doctor to acquire sperm. If the two women’s names are on the kid’s birth certificate, then the non custodial parent of that child (which would be the ex-partner) should be paying it.

Steven October 28, 2013 at 3:01 am

Unfortunately family courts pretty much do whatever-the-f*ck they want.

The two women wanted equality and wanted the responsibility of a child – until it was inconvenient.

Qofdeath October 30, 2013 at 6:41 pm

Family courts do whatever they want. I’m married and I have to pay child support to my wife. Explain that one, because I’m simply stumped. So is my lawyer that been trying for 2 years to get them to stop harassing me. I can’t keep paying him, and they have never presented a valid reason for this child support, simply insisting that I must pay it because the state ordered me to pay it. The money that I pay to my wife of 8 years goes through the state and she gets 30% of it back, months later.

Booze And Nonsense October 30, 2013 at 12:17 am

I think you may just not like feminists. We could plug in pretty much any group tangentially related to this story for the same results: “Where are the fertility doctors…” Maybe it’s not a part of the feminist agenda.

It’s ridiculous to expect any advocacy group to address every single event that may be related to their cause. You have to work big to small. Also, this will probably get demolished in the courts. But hey, way to use the story to advance your own misguided agenda!

ronwator October 30, 2013 at 11:02 am

Fertility doctors did not push for legislation for same sex marriage. The lesbian and Feminist community has pushed for “equal rights” well I contend with rights come responsibilities. The two listed parents in this case are both women. If the women break up then the custodial parent should get some funding assistance from the non custodial parent(child support).

This guy being taken on by the state is just another example of how family law is this country is screwed up. The “mother” lied to the state and said she did not know the donor, with no apparent consequence. And if you don’t think this is big enough for advocacy groups to address then wait and see if he loses his battle with the state. Men across the country will be double thinking any choice to donate.

Riddle me this Booze And Nonsense, Why is the state of Kansas going after a genetic donor rather than the other parent? Or do you think the other woman is not a parent and therefore not responsible? The only thing I’m interested in here is EQUALITY under the law. What is your position?

Booze And Nonsense October 30, 2013 at 2:05 pm

In 2012 the Supreme Court of Kansas ruled, In the Matter of the Adoption of I. M. ,that a single person could not adopt someone unless the current parent gave up those rights. Kansas also has a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Therefore, it is impossible in that state for two same sex people to be the parents of a child; the child legally never had another parent. Obviously the state can’t go after the parent because of their own legal precedent. I believe that this is wrong and will be corrected in the coming years.

You think family law is messed up, but you didn’t seem to do very much research; or you ignored it to try to make a stupid point. Again, advocacy groups are working hard on fixing adoption law, but there’s not much they can do with this case until Kansas amends its Constitution.

I think the other woman is responsible, but I’m not using that as a justification for some ridiculous point about LGBT groups not addressing this specific case when they are actively fighting for the right to marry and adopt, rights which would make this case moot. Anything else?

Matt Holloway October 30, 2013 at 4:46 pm

This is about Equal Rights. They Donor signed the Sperm away. This is the 2 female parent’s responsibility. not his.

ronwator October 30, 2013 at 6:26 pm

Yes of course your correct. Advocacy groups always show up to fight for rights and privilege… When do they show up to fight for responsibility? Please point me in the direction of that group because then they would earn some of my respect. This is my point from the beginning, they only show up when there is a cookie in the jar not when it’s time to make cookies.

Booze And Nonsense October 31, 2013 at 3:06 am

Civil rights are a cookie now? Great…

ronwator October 31, 2013 at 1:31 pm

It’s an analogy but I would have thought you were educated enough to understand that rather than to try to belittle it. So how long have you been a feminist anyway?

Booze And Nonsense October 31, 2013 at 11:47 pm

You belittled it by making an inane analogy and by bringing up advocacy groups that are only tangentially related to this issue. Big to small guy; when those groups successfully petition the gov’t for adoption and marriage rights, which they are, this won’t be an issue. You just want to find any excuse to bash them.

I’m a feminist in the sense that I believe in equality. When did you stop believing that women were equal to men?

ronwator November 1, 2013 at 12:18 pm

No two people are equal but I do not see men or women as superior. Equality might be achievable under the law but the law as it is favors women. My only reason to start posting on this story was a call for equality. When we find equality in reproductive rights, divorce and family law and end the insane state sponsored bigotry know as affirmative action then we will be getting closer to equality. Then we can work on the little things like disparities in education, healthcare funding, and punishment for criminals all of which are bias toward women. You see I believe women and men should be treated equally in the eyes of the law but for some reason the law does not. I’m a bit surprised that you, after showing you knowledge of law, don’t get that.

ronwator October 30, 2013 at 6:30 pm

By the way I never once mentioned “LGBT” groups. I mentioned Lesbians and Feminist. So please do not put words in my mouth.

Steven October 30, 2013 at 10:01 pm

Booze was trying to confuse the issue and to paint you as ignorant (at best) and bigotted (at worst) – see my response (above) to him.
He was both legally ignorant and possibly trolling to paint this as somehow discrimination against lesbians.
I pointed out that you were right, and he needs to think before he speaks. 🙂

Booze And Nonsense October 31, 2013 at 3:05 am

When you learn to study case law we can have an intelligent discussion. I’m not arguing that it’s discrimination against lesbians, I refuting the earlier point that lesbian groups aren’t doing anything about this. They are. They are fighting for the right to legally adopt and to legally marry; two things that would solve this problem.

I provided the case law and Constitutional amendment that’s created this case. Do you have anything?

Steven October 31, 2013 at 3:27 am

Frazier v. Goudschaal
Now – stop being WILLFULLY ignorant (at best) or lying (at worst).

Booze And Nonsense October 31, 2013 at 3:02 am

What do you think the “L” stands for?

ronwator October 31, 2013 at 1:26 pm

Well as far as I’m concerned in the context of “LGBT” it stands for women must be first and the rest are subordinate. But you being a stickler on details brought Gays, bisexuals, and transgendered into the conversation. I specifically mentioned Lesbians and Feminist for a reason. Why you would feel the need to include these other groups I have no idea.

Booze And Nonsense October 31, 2013 at 11:44 pm

You bore me. I hope that you aren’t married.

Steven October 30, 2013 at 9:58 pm

Lol – Booze cute try, but no cigar.
While the state may not recognize same sex marriage you cannot tell me that no one is the legal history of the state that 2 people, not even marred, and maybe 2 people married to OTHER people have not been named as being responsible for a child.

To put it more plain: Parents die and parents leave Joe and Mike both as custodians of the child. Joe and Mike are both married to women, but have accepted guardianship of the child in the case of death. While 1 person will receive primary custody, they can both be named as co-guardians.
So please do not confuse issue.
In the same way when a woman gives a child up for adoption she is relinquishing both her rights and her responsibilities for that child.

And while I have have NOT heard about states then going after that mom for child support – I HAVE heard of those moms then changing their mind after all the legal hurdles have been cleared by the new parents, and for the mom demanding “her” child back.
And feminist advocacy groups are there every time a woman wants what she wants, and never to stick her with the bill.
It is not Ronwator who is legally ignorant, it is you sir.

Don’t talk down your nose to people – it opens you up for the clue-by-four slap I just gave you.
Feminist groups are advocacy groups for one sided bigoted laws and not for equality – and this couple being a lesbian couple has little to nothing to do with LGBT issues.
If this were a hetero couple – and you can Google this Booze – the male (sperm donor) could STILL be sued. And that HAS happened.
Educate yourself before you speak.

Booze And Nonsense October 31, 2013 at 3:02 am

You are ignoring the case law. In the state of Kansas you cannot be the single custodian of a child while someone else already is. Two unmarried people of the same sex cannot legally be the guardians; I gave you the precedent.

Groups are working to allow for same sex couples to adopt and groups are working to allow same sex couples to wed. Either would be a solution. Just admit that you’re either wrong or just looking for an out to blast groups you don’t agree with.

Steven October 31, 2013 at 3:26 am

In a recent ruling, Frazier v. Goudschaal, the Kansas Supreme Court held that a lesbian co-parent was entitled to full legal parent status on the basis of a co-parenting agreement that she and her partner had signed in conjunction with the birth of each of two daughters
Now – stop lying.

Booze And Nonsense October 31, 2013 at 10:08 am

That ruling was made after the state had already began its actions against Mr. Marotta. Obviously, the state couldn’t rely on a non-existent ruling to guide then at the time of their original filing. I’m sure his legal team is all over it as a means to ending his troubles, but it doesn’t get to the crux of why this discussion began: That Lesbian groups aren’t doing anything about these issues.

And why look here, the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed an amicus curiae in the case you cited!

So here’s what we have:

1. The state constitution and all legal precedent at the time allowed the state to take action against Mr. Marotta and prevented the same sex partner from making any claim to custody.

2. A major Lesbian advocacy group was involved in the case you’ve cited, not to mention the ACLU, another organization that fights on behalf of the LGBT community.

You know why feminist advocacy groups are there for women? Because that’s literally the definition of feminism. You can not like them, but this was only tangentially related to feminism. It’s an issue of guardianship, adoption law and probably gay rights.

I’ll admit that I was unaware of the case you cited, but I never lied. I presented verifiable information why you rambled on with a bunch of anecdotes and then finally supplied case law which was finalized after this case had already began and which supported my point that appropriate advocacy groups get involved when relevant cases appear. This is not one.

Go back to randomly capitalizing words throughout your sentences and telling people how tough things will be for you if Congress passes equal pay laws.

Steven October 31, 2013 at 3:39 pm

Wow – legal ignorance on display. It has been illegal to pay people differently based on gender for decades.
And gotta love the ever shifting definition of feminism. “The literal definition of feminism” …. gee, I thought it was about equality. Thanks for proving my point though.
And thanks for ALLOWING me to capitalize words randomly – I wasn’t aware I needed your permission.
You went on and on with some false sense of superiority citing the law – telling me I was ignorant and telling me to admit I was ignorant and wrong.
I showed you that you were wrong. While you minimally acknowledged that fact, you then immediately glossed over it and drove on.
So – ideology over facts is your game, huh?
You kept echoing over and over that I was ignorant and hateful. You demanded that once I had acquainted myself with the law I admit I was wrong.

My posts have been about equality and exposing double standards. Now – let’s see if you hold yourself to the same standards as you demand from others.
Your move Booze.

Steven October 30, 2013 at 9:45 pm

Um, no, not so much – this is feminist jurisprudence on display.
You know what you don’t hear of (I can’t seem to find a case) a surrogate mom who gets sued for child support. Go and google it – I did. But I DID find plenty of cases where surrogate moms went back on their word and kept the baby and then sued the parents FOR child support.
Feminism, as practiced, versus what it’s advertised to be for / do is about female supremacy. Equality when that’s to the woman’s advantage, and absolution of responsibility when that is the desired outcome.
Ever hear of a case where the mother who gave the child up for adoption was sued for child support and that it was upheld by the courts? How is that different than this case?
The feminist influence on law, policy, and legal precedent is never about equality when the outcome is truly equal, whereby the feminist group is suing to ensure women get the short end of the stick the same as men in the same way.
What feminists SAY they do almost never matches up to what they truly advocate for. If you look at the policy makers, legislative aids, university professors in gender studies, or feminist women in positions of power, and what they want – it is NEVER for women to be held to a strict standard in the same way they want men held to.
So – again – “You may not like feminists” is not the issue – I don’t like their record of sexism and bigotry.

Booze And Nonsense October 31, 2013 at 3:07 am

Only Kansas law applies here and while you couldn’t find a case, I did. Read it, then read the Kansas constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. All of your anecdotes mean nothing when it comes to precedent. Just say you don’t like feminists and drop it.

Steven October 31, 2013 at 3:27 am

And in Kansas law (ta da): Frazier v. Goudschaal
Now as to not liking feminist group – duh : I don’t like bigots.

ronwator October 31, 2013 at 1:39 pm

Does Kansas law ban unmarried straight couples from have babies? If not can those unmarried straight people both be listed as parents of the same child. I guess what I’m trying to ask with my limited intellect is what does marriage law have to do with reproductive law? I’m so looking forward to you getting up on your soap box to verbally admonish my ignorance.

Steven October 31, 2013 at 5:30 pm

Ya ever had one of those moments where you see a reply, and

quickly type out an answer and, while that answer is on point, you think of even better answer later? Sure you have – we all have.

This is mine to “Booze and Nonsense”

I have had many of these discussions, and I am oh-so-not
amazed how formulaic the progression of such conversations goes.

I state my opposition to some injustice or inequality. I point to, in this case, feminists groups showing how they claim to be about equality, but openly advocate for inequality. Such groups advocate not on the issue, but to get whatever the woman wants in that particular case. Principles and justice be damned.

Then, as surely as night follows day I am called a misogynist and a hater. This is not a genuine labeling – but a silencing tactic, and one to discredit the person who is pointing out the injustice.

Depending on how the conversation goes I’ll be directed to
Webster’s dictionary definition of feminism, told over and over that feminist academics, lawyers, and advocacy groups are only interested in equality and then comes the inevitable shaming language.
Shaming language – the weak ass tool feminists TRY to use.

I’m “afraid of a strong woman”, and need to “stop whining” and need to “man up”. They don’t address the hypocrisy of the feminist groups, don’t decry the inequality, or come to the realization that these groups are, by Webster’s dictionary definition, bigoted and prejudicial.

The ends justifies the means with such people. A single standard is for you, not them. In every case whatever they want is justified, and that is regardless of the simple fact that should the genders be reversed they’d be vehemently opposed to the very same decision / action.

Such is the case with “Booze and Nonsense”

In all my posts I called for equality and a single standard. I spoke up against inequality and unfairness. I pointed out that groups that SELF-identify as feminist are promoting bigoted and unfair outcomes. I could also point out, when the reply is “that’s not every group”, that no OTHER feminist groups are saying squat in opposition to the blatant sexism is the aforementioned groups.

So “Booze and Nonsense” painted me as a hater, and said I
had issues with feminist groups, and said I was “just looking to blast groups I don’t agree with.”

Which is weird – because my points / posts were on point,

and he / she kept trying to hijack the thread that was about how men were treated into one whereby somehow LBGT rights were being trampled.

The victim in the case he cited was a MAN. He was being put in legal peril under threat of prison to pay for a child that everyone in the case agreed that he’d given up all his rights and responsibilities for.


So – on the one hand “Booze and Nonsense” says that I’m a hater for daring to bring up prejudiced and bigoted feminist groups – and when that didn’t gain traction he / she then spoke out of the other side of his / her face and said “of COURSE feminist groups are advocating for only women and what women want”.


The cognizant dissonance is deafening, and completely lost on “Booze and Nonsense”. The groups are not sexist and
I am a hater (for no reason apparently), but of course they advocate for injustice and base it on the genetic predisposition of the person (a woman).

Good grief.

“Booze and Nonsense” – I have, in every post, on any thread you care to find that I have written, advocated for REAL equality. Equality sometimes means you don’t get what you want. Sometimes it means that you lose.

Feminist groups do what you do – they claim they fight for fairness and equality, but then champion only what women want. You first deny it, and claim those who point it out are haters, then you excuse it and explain that “of course” they do that.


Of the two of us – there is one who wants equality, a single standard, and justice, and one who uses those words to invoke feelings, but does not stand for those principles when it might not advance your agenda.

Lastly, you come in here spouting legal cases and daring anyone to show you otherwise. It pre-supposes that you are basing your argument on the law. Instead, when shown that you were (again) wrong, you slightly back peddle and then drive on.

Your PREMISE was wrong. What you were basing your argument on was false. To wit: that a lesbian cannot have another lesbian named as the 2nd parent. Did you then back off and realize that this man was screwed? You remember him
right? The victim in all this. Yes, despite him having the evil patriarchal penis he was the wronged party.

No – what you did was quickly acknowledge what was said, ignore your missing foundational premise, and drive on – all the while ignoring the victim and strenuously advocating for your

It’s called projection, when you point at others and call them sexist – while openly defending sexist groups and ignoring the actual sexism done by theose groups. What you do you project onto others because that’s what you’d do.

So my conclusion is that you’re the one with gender issues. I assert this – the burden of proof is on me: You denounce someone who points out bigoted groups and injustice, and try to tar them as a hater. When proven wrong on that score you then re-assert they have issues with feminist groups (for no reason
apparently) and then say “of course” the feminist groups do sexist things – that’s who they are (and apparently you are ok with that). You ignore and sidestep the real victim (he’s apparently not important to you and does not fit into your agenda) and drive on with your advocacy. Your advocacy is purely based on ideological grounds in support of LGBT group – getting them what they want, when they want it – and not on a single standard, not based on the case at hand (the article and case were about the male), and never acknowledge your
double standards and endorsement of sexism – because it fit your agenda.

The ends justify the means, huh?

I’ve done this argument before Booze – it’s like having a swordfight against a blindfolded child who is using a nerf bat. Your own double standards, self-justifications, false premises and blatant disregard for another human being based solely on their gender defeat you.

My suggestion: Start a new screen name and start anew . Why?

Because you’re credibility as to being a fair minded person who is not disinterested in the rights of individual people, regardless of their gender, color, or political leanings is shot.
If you were to be objective and see another person doing those things, on a subject with which you disagreed with them on – you’d see it clearly. But you’ve so trained your mind as to accept blatant double standards, while using self-justification, and having an “the ends justify the means” mentality that you’ll keep doing this until one day it dawns on you that your short term goals of winning and getting what you want are outweighed by the legal precedents you are setting. You’ll realize that when
those legal precedents come back and bite you or someone you love in the ass.

My guess is that on that day you’ll STILL not recognize your own hand in the very mess you advocated for, and participated in shaping.

And I’ll still be out there advocating for a single standard and against inequality.

Booze And Nonsense November 1, 2013 at 12:02 am

I don’t care for your strawman characterization of my arguments. This wasn’t a discussion about equality, it’s about advocacy.

I never showed anything but sympathy for Mr. Marotta and your suggestion of anything but that is evidence of how weak your claims are. The issue, which I never brought up, was whether Lesbian and Feminists groups are involved in solutions to these kinds of problems. They are, as evidences by the case you cited.

My premise was correct, because when this case began all case law prevented two women from being parents to one child. This case began before the judgement you cited and this may come as a shock to you, but court proceedings take time and Mr. Marotta will get a chance to use this new precedent when his time comes.

I never brought up men’s rights or Lesbian groups, the OP did. Again, you’ve completely mischaracterized my argument just as you have everything else just so that you can be right. I’m bored with you. Study up on fallacies, kid.

Steven November 1, 2013 at 3:39 pm

A) It wasn’t a strawman – I simply took what you said and it made you look bad.
You gave me the label of unreasonable hater for having issues with feminist bigotry, as though they weren’t bigots, and then talked out of the other side of your mouth and said “well, duh, of course they advocate for women and not equality”
B) The victim, long forgotten by you in every post, except as the most cursory mention, was the man.
For you it was an also ran quick mention on your way to driving your agenda.
So – you made you look bad, not me – “kid”.

legi_intellexi_condemnavi October 31, 2013 at 11:36 am

I have the same objection to conscription in Norway. If it had been 1 year holiday for males, surely they would have aggressively campaigned.

Lori Alayne Weber Miller October 26, 2013 at 5:52 pm

This appears to be a case of the state preserving the medical establishments monopoly on fertility measures see a Licensed physician did not collect a fee so he is not a certified sperm donor.

GRusling October 26, 2013 at 6:06 pm

SOMEONE in Kansas is a lot more than just STUPID! Only a complete IDIOT would file such a case!

danapointdaddy October 28, 2013 at 12:51 am

substitute public servant for idiot… and you will be saying the same thing.

RockDad Rice October 26, 2013 at 6:54 pm

Go after the bull dyke you were shacked up with, lady! But this guy was an idiot to donate sperm to two lesbians.

Truth1 October 28, 2013 at 1:04 am

He doesnt get to choose where the sperm goes, you moron.

RockDad Rice October 28, 2013 at 6:42 pm

He knew the these lesbians didn’t he?

Guest October 29, 2013 at 2:56 pm

Read the article, instead of going straight to the comments, or you will look like a complete moron. He know the women. The only way he wouldn’t get to chose is if he went through a sperm bank. If you actually read the article, you’d have realized that he didn’t go to a sperm bank, which is exactly what triggered the issue to begin with.

willerz October 29, 2013 at 2:56 pm

Read the article, instead of going straight to the comments, or you will look like a complete moron. He knew the women. The only way he wouldn’t get to choose is if he went through a sperm bank. If you actually read the article, you’d have realized that he didn’t go to a sperm bank, which is exactly what triggered the issue to begin with.

Tina Thomas October 28, 2013 at 2:42 am

David Crosby donated to Melissa Etheridge and her former partner. He’s not having to pay child support.

Laura Phares-Wilson October 26, 2013 at 7:22 pm

So, the guy gives sperm to be used to create a child that is being raised and brainwashed (demented) by sex perverts. Really feeling sorry for the offspring – can’t say I feel sorry the man – he should have cared more about his seed.

Rani J Pabón October 27, 2013 at 5:40 am

I mostly agree with you… But guy should not be forced to pay.

Keyboard Cat October 28, 2013 at 12:59 am

You’re probably a feminist so it doesn’t surprise me you can’t feel empathy for men

Tina Thomas October 28, 2013 at 2:54 am

My how judgmental you are. Since when is it your job to do God’s job? Just so you know, I do know gay couples who have raised perfectly normal kids and have been foster parents. They took in kids people like you wouldn’t touch with a 10 foot pole because they weren’t “babies” and they weren’t “perfect”.

cng October 28, 2013 at 5:54 am

Dear Laura Phares-Wilson: I would like to come up with an intelligent reply with which we could discuss the merits of your overwhelming stupidity and the ironic fact that you, likely a religious zealot, used brainwashed and demented synonymously when in fact you’ve probably never had an original idea in your life.
Unfortunately, it would be such an egregious waste of time, that I will just leave you with the jist of it, which any fool can understand: Eat shit and die.

GoneFishing October 28, 2013 at 9:31 am

Despite your use of “big words”, attempting to sound intelligent, that was the most condescending, shameful and vile use of the english language. Funny how you think that your opinion is a show-stopper. It’s really only one of many. Too bad for you, and those like you, you’ll never have power over those who have moral values and object to deviant behavior – try as you may.

willerz October 29, 2013 at 2:59 pm

Brainwashed by sex perverts? As opposed to what, being brainwashed by religious cults, such as all the sects of Christianity?

Laura Jensen October 30, 2013 at 12:06 am

I’m baffled, why is the state suing him and not one of the mothers? Is the child a ward of the state? Anyone?

ronwator October 30, 2013 at 11:13 am

One of the mothers still has custody of the child. The state is going after this guy most likely for three reasons. 1) He is most likely in a better financial position. 2) Requiring the use of doctors puts money in the state coffers. 3) Kansas is not known as a gay friendly state.

This is typical of our screwed up family law in this country. Any time anything goes wrong the first thing the legal system does is start digging in the bank account of a perceived father. There is a case out there where a 15 year old boy was abused by a 30 year old and she got pregnant. She spent 2 years in prison got out got the child and child support including back payments to the time he was 15.

Steven October 30, 2013 at 10:21 pm

is also another case (Michigan) where a 14 year old boy was raped (not statutorily, but actually raped) by a 24 year old woman and she got pregnant and has successfully sued the now man / then boy for child support and won. It went all the way to the Michigan Supreme Court and is now legal precedent in
the state.

8 years after she raped the boy she and her husband split up – due to him looking at the child and saying “um, that aint me”.

So at first she sued for child support from her ex-husband – and he demanded a paternity test. Turned out, no surprise, it wasn’t the ex-husband’s.

She then consulted an attorney, realized the statute of limitation on her rape had expired, and admitted in open court that, yes, in fact she had raped the 14 year old boy, but that she wanted custody, and was not only granted custody of the male child, but the court ruled that the young men (who had been the 14
year old boy) could, in fact, be held liable for child support.

You can Google this case – it’s not hard to find – except you may find so many OTHER cases like it that you’ll have to sift through all of them to find that particular one.

So – after 10 years (as the case took 2 years to reach the Michigan Supreme Court) – the sexual assault victim was denied any rights as to custody – as that might be too traumatic for the child – the rapist got custody, and the male rape victim is ordered to pay child support to his rapist under the threat of prison
for non-payment.

Yep, a female sexual predator, who has shown a preference for barely pubescent boys, is given custody of an almost pubescent boy, one in her preferred age range for sexually molesting, and the victim is given the bill.

Oh, and feminist groups were out in force to help this mom keep her child and to help her get child support. That is how
shamelessly bigoted and one sided feminist groups are.

Leave a Comment