KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- The case of a Kansas sperm donor being sued by the state for child support underscores a confusing patchwork of aging laws that govern assisted reproduction and often lead to litigation and frustration among would-be parents.
Complex questions about parental responsibility resurfaced late last year, as Kansas officials went after a Topeka man who had answered a Craigslist ad from a lesbian couple seeking a sperm donor. As no doctor was involved in the artificial insemination, the state sought to hold William Marotta financially responsible for the child when the women split up and one sought public assistance. A hearing is set for April.
Many states haven't updated their laws to address the evolution of family structures, such as same-sex families, single women conceiving with donated sperm or homemade artificial inseminations. At-home insemination kits are inexpensive, and obtaining sperm from a friend, or even a donor met through the Internet, allows women to avoid medical costs that generally aren't covered by insurance.
But experts say that, as case law changes, families put themselves at risk by failing to seek legal advice.
The first wave of assisted reproduction laws was based on model legislation from 1973. Those statutes typically call for, among other things, the involvement of a medical provider for a sperm donor to be freed of parental responsibility.
"They put a whole bunch of what they thought were reasonable restrictions on the process to encourage people to do it responsibly," said Steve Snyder, a Minnesota family law attorney and chairman of an assisted reproduction committee for the American Bar Association. But, he said, the problem is that, if people "don't fall under the strict terms of the law, then the law doesn't protect you."
Thus the doctor involvement requirement and other stipulations were dropped in 2000 when the Uniform Parentage Act, was updated. Nine states have enacted the new language, including Alabama, Oklahoma and Texas. But Kansas' 1994 law was based on the earlier model.
Kansas isn't alone in grappling with assisted reproduction issues. In Indiana, an appeals court ruled last week that a man who divorced his wife must pay child support for their son and daughter, even though the children were conceived by artificial insemination using sperm donated by another man. Still another case in Indiana involved a man who was ordered in 2010 to pay child support for only one of the two children resulting from his sperm donations.