A Kansas man who donated his sperm to a lesbian couple is fighting back after the state ordered him to pay child support, arguing that he signed an agreement with the women that waives all his parental rights for the now three-year-old child.

William Marotta, 46, of Topeka, answered an online ad on Craigslist.com in 2009 from a then local lesbian couple, Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, who said they were looking for sperm donors. After several meetings and email exchanges, the parties signed an agreement relieving Marotta of any financial and paternal responsibilities including 

The artificial insemination was handled in-house by the women themselves using a syringe. Last year, Bauer and Schreiner parted ways and the former had to seek assistance from the state for the care of her daughter. 

Kansas Department for Children and Families spokeswoman Angela de Rocha said that when a single mother seeks benefits for a child, it’s routine for the department to seek out a child’s paternity and require the father to make support payment to lessen costs to taxpayers.

State law on sperm donation and artificial insemination is patterned after the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) which was first promulgated in 1973 and is still in use by at least 10 other states. The case hinges on provisions for the use of medical professionals to supervise artificial forms of insemination. The original provisions of the Artificial Insemination (AI) statutes clearly state the need for a medical professional to supervise and perform any forms of insemination in order to waive or establish paternal rights through a signed, written contract between all involved parties. Since Marotta allegedly didn’t perform the insemination with a medical professional’s supervision, he can be held responsible for financial assistance received by the biological mother as well as future child support payments.

The Department insists that the agreement between Marotta, Bauer and Schreiner is not valid as the insemination was not performed under the supervision of a physician, a crucial element in the AI statutes of the UPA which does not distinguish between known donors and anonymous donors. Marotta is asking the state to dismiss the case, arguing that he’s involvement is only that of a sperm donor and that, legally, he is not the child’s father.

Several U.S. states, including Delaware, Texas, Washington, North Dakota, Utah, Oklahoma, and Wyoming, have already amended their versions of the UPA to add certain rights to donors not included in the original adopting a new UPA as approved by the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws in 2002.  This group also recommended that Kansas amend state family laws to reflect changes that give donors waiving rights regardless if the insemination was performed with a medical professional or not.

Experts strongly encourage potential donors to seek out legal information first as to their state’s local family codes and to know what rights they have to avoid any legal issues that could arise.