In the state of Kansas, it is not yet legal for gay and lesbian couples to be married. If these couples wish to have a child together, artificial insemination processes are extremely expensive, about $3,000 per single attempt, according to CNN. Kansas law states that any processes involving a sperm donor must be supervised by a licensed physician in order to avoid health risks such as sexually transmitted infections. In order to avoid such steep prices, some people may seek an alternative method of finding a donor.
In March of 2009, Jennifer Schreiner and her partner Angela Bauer did just that by seeking a sperm donor via Craigslist with the intention of saving money, according to CNN. Although this may have seemed like a wise move that would save the couple quite a bit of money, there are important things women should know about their donors, such as family medical history. However, the couple and the donor took the steps that they felt necessary to complete the process. Both the donor and the couple signed an agreement waiving the donor of his parental responsibilities. In December of the same year, the child was born. Nearly five years later, the two women have split up and the state has forced their donor, William Marotta, to pay child support even though both parties agreed to waive his parental rights and responsibilities. The people who should be held responsible for this child are the people that the child recognizes as her parents, not the donor. I find it outrageous to force a man who was simply trying to help a couple in need to pay for a child that he’s assumed no previous responsibility for.
The decision to seek a donor through Craigslist in order to save money is also ridiculous. If this couple was not financially capable of affording a safe and responsible method of conceiving a child, they should not have been attempting to conceive in the first place. To top off this already irresponsible decision, upon the couple’s recent separation, Schreiner applied to the state for financial help when she could not work due to an illness. The state then contacted the donor seeking child support. Although both parties participated in signing the agreement to waive his parental responsibilities, according to the state of Kansas, he was still legally responsible for the child.
Essentially this entire situation was a mistake from the beginning. Not only is seeking a sperm donor via Craigslist dangerous to the health of the woman and the child, it was against the law. If this couple was truly ready to have a child of their own, they would have considered not only their finances, but the health of the child and the legal issues associated with the artificial insemination process. The donor should not be held responsible because he is just that—a donor—and nothing more to this child.
Based on the agreement the couple had with the donor, he would have no parental rights or responsibilities. The people who should be responsible for this child are the two women in the relationship who wanted to have a child in the first place. While it is understandable that a woman who is unable to work for the time being due to illness would consider going to the state for financial support for her child, the other woman who was previously in the relationship should be the one to help with child support because according to this child, both women are her parents, not the sperm donor. According to CNN, he had not met or contacted the child until three months ago where he happened to run into one of the parents and the child in public.
Sarah Drury from Westbrook, Maine, a woman who recently had a child with her partner by means of artificial insemination.
“It seems incredibly unfair that this man, who selflessly donated sperm to help a couple, would now be held financially responsible for a child he does not even know and never had any parental responsibilities for,” Drury said.
Drury and her partner utilized the California Cryobank to find their donor. According to Drury, “The California Cryobank facility has a very good reputation and maintains strict criteria for its donors. Through our search we were ability (sic) to access an enormous amount of information about potential donors including: family medical history, educational and professional history, personal interests, baby pictures, etc.” This method seems much more reliable and provides all of the necessary information for women to be confident that their child will be healthy. Drury also said that the legal aspects of sperm donation were explained to her and her partner through their donation center.
Financial reasoning pushed Schreiner and Bauer to use Craigslist for their sperm donation. Drury and her partner, however, were willing to wait until they “were financially able to purchase sperm from a reputable facility.”
It was important to Drury and her partner to have access to medical information while keeping their donor confidential and free of any responsibility. On the subject of Schreiner, Drury said, “I would not have made an attempt to get child support from the donor. I would have done my best to resolve this between my partner and I regardless of how dire my financial situation was.” Drury also discussed that she would be concerned about bringing her child’s biological father into their life at such a late stage in development. This is a reasonable concern that Schreiner clearly never had, making me wonder if she has her child’s best interest in mind afterall.
After speaking with someone who has been through the artificial insemination process in a responsible way, it is clear that there are many important factors other than finances that come into play when having a child. Although the state of Kansas recognizes the man as the father, this issue should be resolved between the two people who are recognized by the child as her parents, neither of those people being the donor.
Elizabeth Rockett can be reached at elizabeth.rockett@spartans.ut.edu