Child Support Obligation for a Sperm Donation?

A Kansas man, William Marotta, responded to a Craigslist ad placed by a same sex couple seeking a sperm donor. One of the woman impregnated herself using a catheter and syringe without any physician’s assistance. A child was born from this process in 2009, she is now 4 years old. Marotta and the couple, Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, signed a written agreement where Marotta relinquished any and all parental rights and Bauer and Schreiner held him harmless for any child support claims raised by any entity or person. The couple split up in 2010 and share joint custody their eight children, including the one that Marotta biologically fathered.

Due to some health issues resulting in financial troubles, Bauer and Schreiner applied for public assistance. The Kansas Department for Children and Families demanded that they disclose the identity of the sperm donor or else the child would lose health insurance. The couple released Marotta’s name and the state opened a child support case against him. The state argues that the written agreement signed by the couple and Marotta is invalid because the insemination was not performed by a licensed physician.

Marotta and his wife are fighting any obligation owed for this child. The Kansas court is likely to reach a decision by the end of this year. 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/25/21150280-kansas-judge-hears-arguments-in-case-of-sperm-donor-sued-for-child-support

Non-traditional couples and parenting are becoming increasingly more common. Kansas, at least in the articles I have seen, has not raised the issue of going after the non-custodial, non-biological parent for reimbursement, or acknowledging that the non-birth parent was the other parent of this child rather than the biological father who, all parties agree, has had no contact with this child, and has no relationship with the child or Bauer or Schreiner. Kansas is not the only court that has addressed the issue of holding a sperm donor responsible for child support for their biological children resulting from the donation. Most of those cases that do hold the donor liable involve a father who has an active role in the child’s life or who holds himself out to be the child’s father.

Legal Parents

In June 2008, in Carson City, Nevada, partners Sha’Kayla St. Mary and Veronica Lynn Damon had a child. Damon’s egg was used with donor sperm. St. Mary carried the child. St. Mary was listed on the child’s birth certificate on the mother and a year later, she signed an affidavit naming Damon as the biological mother.

The mothers had a co-parenting agreement and broke up when the child was about a year. St. Mary petitioned for custodial rights. A lower court judge ruled that St. Mary had no biological or custody rights since she was only the surrogate and they refused to consider a joint parenting agreement both mothers signed before the child was born. The Nevada Supreme Court disagreed. The Court ruled that the joint parenting agreement was more than a surrogacy agreement and St. Mary assets that she is the legal mother of the child in addition to Damon, not instead of Damon. Nevada’s Parentage Act does not prevent a child from having two legal mothers.
http://www.ajc.com/news/ap/nevada/surrogate-mom-can-seek-child-custody/nbFSj/

In California, Jerry Brown just recently signed a bill that allows a child to have more than two legal parents. This bill is in response to the changing family structure and the increasing number of same sex couples having children. The bill is to allow a courts to recognize the roles of all parents and to not separate a child from a figure that he/she knows as a parent.
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-brown-bills-parents-20131005,0,7226241.story

Spousal Privilege in Same Sex Couples

Bobbie Jo Clary entered into a civil union in Vermont with her domestic partner Geneva Case in 2004. Bobbie Jo is now a defendant in a murder case in Kentucky. Judge Susan Schultz Gibson is not allowing Geneva Case to assert spousal privilege in order to refuse to testify against Bobbie Jo. Prosecutors claim that Clary admitted to Case that she killed a man and that Case saw Clary cleaning blood from his van a couple of years ago.

While same sex marriages are recognized in Vermont, they are not in Kentucky. Despite that, Judge Gibson indicates that the partners needed to take further action to convert their civil union into a marriage which they did not do. So, technically, they aren’t married under Vermont law either. Judge Gibson does not have to consider the constitutionality of the marital privilege for same sex couples because they are not technically married in any state.  Still, this raises an interesting issue of what Kentucky would have done if these parties had converted their union into a marriage. 

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/spousal_privilege_doesnt_apply_to_woman_testifying_in_same-sex_partners_mur/?utm_source=maestro&sc_cid=130925BF&utm_campaign=weekly_email&utm_medium=email

SAME-SEX UNIONS: THE STATE IN THE STATES

    A decade ago, my (law) partner* and I worked on writing same-sex “union” contracts from scratch.**   There’s been a sea-change since then, but the wave is still rolling in, and exactly where it is on a given day, and what we’re advising our clients on a given day, is still very fluid.

IN CALIFORNIA

    In 2004, California adopted “new” Registered Domestic Partnerships (NDP’s).  California NDP’s were thereafter to be treated as having the same legal rights and responsibilities as spouses under California law.  

    This was, however, the era of state and Federal “Defense Of Marriage” Acts.   Under Federal law, and under the law of (then most other) states, NDP’s were not recognized as “spouses” for any purpose, notwithstanding whatever California law had to say about the subject.  By a rough count at that time, Federal laws and regulations referred to “spouses” in a couple of thousand places. This meant, among other things, that California NDP’s had no spousal federal tax rights or benefits, had no spousal rights in connection with any employee benefit plan covered by ERISA, could not file a joint bankruptcy, had no spousal or family rights in regard to immigration, and that none of the spousal rights California conferred were necessarily “portable” to any other state. 

    Following years of court battles, California now permits same-sex couples to marry, i.e., they’re “spouses” not just in effect, but by actual label.  The NDP framework however, still remains available and in place.

IN THE REST OF THE COUNTRY: LABELS STILL MATTER

   
    Federal law and Federal practice, in regard to same-sex partnerships, is slowly changing.  Since Congress has not yet acted to make wholesale changes in Federal law, or to explicitly repeal all parts of the Federal DOMA, these changes are still being made on a department-by department basis.  As noted elsewhere on the blog, both the Treasury Department (IRS) and the Labor Department (ERISA) have now stated that they will recognize any couple designated as “spouses” by the law of a state to be “spouses” for purposes of their Federal regulations.      To date, they have indicated that couples labeled as something other than “spouses” by the law of the state or country where they “contracted the relationship” will not be treated as spouses.

    Exactly how and when remaining Federal laws, regulations, and practice will change remains unclear; equally unclear is whether any of the changes will be given any retroactive effect.

    It also seems likely, after the Supreme Court next addressees the issue that states will no longer be able to decline to recognize “marriages” contracted between same-sex couples from other states.  This result too will probably not carry over to “civil unions”, “domestic partnerships” etc., since those states don’t recognize such status for their own citizens.

    So, for the moment, “labels still matter”.

*Not my law partner any more, but still my wife, now a judge...
**or from duct tape and general contract law.  See Gould-Saltman, D. J., and Gould-Saltman, R.F. (2002) "Gay and Lesbian Marriage and Its Alternatives"  2002 Family Law Update, Brown, R. and Morgan, L. eds,  Aspen Law & Business.

Same-Sex Marriage Tax Problems (Partially) Eliminated

The President has announced that the Treasury Department will give Federal recognition to same-sex marriages for tax purposes.  It's unclear whether this decision will apply to "civil unions", "registered domestic partnerships", etc.  Stay tuned...

Looks Like A Romantic Summer!

Three years after my post noting that boomers and post-boomers seem to be much more comfortable with the idea of "tailoring" their marriage by way of a pre-marital agreement, the economy is slowly emerging from the doldrums, same-sex marriages are happening again in California, and, based on the number of calls I'm getting about relationship planning and pre-nups, Cupid is working overtime.

DOMA Donesky! What Does This Mean For "Domestic Partners" and the "Civilly United"?

I'm still digesting the SCOTUS' decisions in the Federal DOMA and California Prop. 8 cases.  The short take-away is that it is probable (though I will never say certain) that the thousand-plus references to the rights/obligations of "spouses",  in Federal laws and regulations, will now include same-sex couples who are "spouses" under the laws of the state in which they contracted a "marriage".   It is not yet clear is whether or not those folks who have a state-recognized relationship which is called something other than "marriage" will fall within that umbrella.

Three More States Vote On Same-Sex Marriage/Domestic Partnerships This Month

Rhode Island, Delaware, and Minnesota.

French Civil Unions: "Marriage Lite"?

There's a reported substantial upswing, in France, of young opposite-sex couples electing to contract "civil unions" instead of marrying. The French 1999 "pacte civil de solidarité" ("civil union") statute was apparently originally enacted, (as with the "civil union" and "domestic partnership" laws of several American states), as a"sort-of-marriage" for same-sex couples, but, as the New York Times reports, as of last year, 95% of the civil unions contracted in France were between mixed-sex couples.

P.S.: My thought, two months after I originally posted this, is that I'd like to know what happened to the marriage rate for the mixed-sex couples of the same age group during this period. Is it possible that having this option available for mixed-sex couples who were reluctant to marry, as the anecdotes suggest, actually increased the number of mixed-sex couples who were willing to make some sort of formal commitment?

Same-Sex Marriage: The Dominoes Falling?

In the wake of the Iowa's Supreme Court's ruling, noted below, two somewhat less surprising developments:

In Vermont, the state legislature overrode a veto by the governor of that state's same-sex-marriage legislation;

and

in Washington D.C. , the Council, the city's governing body, has voted to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states and countries.