In what seems to be a never-ending court case, it appears as if the current judge hearing the Kansas sperm donor case is about to make a ruling. The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in October of 2012 against a man who donated sperm to a same-sex couple. The women had posted an ad on the internet seeking a sperm donor. After the child was born, the women split up and the parent who remained with the child full time applied for state assistance. This is when the state refused to help and went after the sperm donor as they believed he was responsible as the biological father. The three technically didn’t follow a Kansas statute that specifically deals with sperm donors.

The statute, KSA 23-2208(f), says, “The donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor’s wife is treated in law as if he were not the birth father of a child thereby conceived, unless agreed to in writing by the donor and the woman.”

Attorneys representing the state of Kansas and William Marotta presented arguments to a Shawnee County District Court judge Friday in the Craigslist case, which focuses on whether Marotta is legally considered a sperm donor or the father of a 4-year-old girl.

At the end of a nearly hourlong hearing, Judge Mary Mattivi said she would issue a written ruling addressing motions both sides have filed seeking summary judgment in their favor. A summary judgment is a determination made by a court without a full trial.

Marotta is fighting the action. He says he didn’t intend to be the child’s father and signed a contract waiving his parental rights and responsibilities while agreeing to donate sperm in a plastic cup to Schreiner and Angela Bauer, who was then her lesbian partner.  (source)

The Kansas Craigslist sperm donor case continues and proves to continue to have hurdles. The man who donated sperm via a craigslist ad to a lesbian couple has been the subject of a very extensive court case. After the lesbian couple broke up, the biological mother, in need of financial assistance from the state, applied and was denied. The state felt the sperm donor should be held responsible for child support. This has been an on-going case with so many new developments over the months. This new report is about the judge proceeding over the case. Read below:

Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi has denied a motion to recuse herself from the trial of a Craigslist sperm donor.

On May 17, Benoit Swinnen, who represents the sperm donor, filed a motion with the court asking Mattivi to disqualify herself from the case.

In a letter dated June 12, Mattivi wrote: “The court heard arguments of counsel on June 5, 2013, and took the matter under advisement. After consideration of the motion, affidavit and arguments of counsel, the court hereby denies the motion.”

In the Craigslist case, the state contends William Marotta, a Topeka man who answered a Craigslist ad in which two Topeka women were seeking a sperm donor, is a father owing child support for the care of a 3-year-old girl born to one of the women.

Marotta and the same-sex female couple he provided the sperm to say he simply is a sperm donor and has no financial responsibility for the child’s care.

Grounds to seek recusal of a judge are:

■ The judge was a lawyer in the case before being appointed as judge.

■ The judge is “otherwise interested” in the action.

■ The judge is related to one of the people involved in the case.

■ The judge is a material witness in the action.

■ The party filing the affidavit believes that due to “personal bias, prejudice or interest” by the judge, the party can’t get a fair and impartial trial or enforcement of post-judgment remedies.

The defense’s June 17 affidavit, which became public record after the judge denied the motion to recuse herself, states: “The court appears to have set a procedural context where it has turned its back on free and open discourse, due process, and judicial independence and appears to have prejudged the outcome of the matter.”

The affidavit also states, “The court appears to advocate for the state. For all purposes, the court has set on tracks a procedural train destined to wreck a fair opportunity for the respondent, the child and the intended mother to be heard.”

The child’s interests are being ignored by the court in the process, the affidavit states.

“The court should not give the appearance of bias and prejudgement, the court should not give the appearance of muzzling strong advocacy and should not seek to derail an argument before the litigant has an opportunity to present and argue his case,” the document states.

The defense believes that on account of “personal bias or prejudice” the orders and decisions of the court “that a child must have parents of different gender, or that a genetic relationship trumps all other relationships and considerations by law, respondent cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial,” the affidavit states.

Timothy Keck, designated lead co-counsel for the state, filed a response June 18, stating: “Judge Mattivi has presumably examined her conscious and determined that the allegations of bias and prejudice are false and nonexistent. There should be great deference given this determination by Judge Mattivi.”

Keck also wrote: “The judges of each division should be allowed to control their respective dockets and set a path for a case without being subjected to allegations of bias and prejudice.”

By Ann Marie Bush

News Source