Sperm Donor Liability for Child Support 2019 Update

UPDATE:  FEBRUARY 3, 2019: Thanks to an alert from Michigan family lawyer John Mertz of Lansing, Michigan, I am updating a six year old blog post titled “Sperm Donor Liability | A New Trend?” blogged on Updates in Family Law on February 20, 2013  under the tags for A.R.T., Child Support, IVF, LGBT, Same-sex Relationships, Surrogacy | http://tinyurl.com/yadcftf3

As Michigan contemplates modifications to Michigan law regarding surrogacy and A.R.T., the issue raised in a 2013 Kansas case is again questioned. Should a sperm donor ever have any liability for child support for a child or children in an anonymous sperm donor case? The issue of liability for child support arose in a current discussion on the State Bar of Michigan Family Law Listserv. Under discussion was the issue of legal parentage and liability for child support. The child support issue becomes critical when / if one of the parents applies for Title IV-D benefits. This liability is cited as a potential inhibitor for those wishing to use A.R.T. and IVF with sperm donors. When I raised the Kansas case, John Mertz thoughtfully called it to our collective attention that, in fact, the Kansas case was, after four years of expensive litigation, resolved in favor of the sperm donor in 2016.

There are some specific mitigating factors (discussed in summary below and in the news article that is linked) that might make a difference if not resolved in the enabling statutes. Good to know. These are issues we should clearly examine as Michigan works toward resolving this most important issue in the legislature.

The Topeka Capital-Journal reported on Nov 28, 2016 that, after four years of litigation, William Marotta (the sperm donor) was held not liable for child support. There were special circumstances in his case, however. A 1994 Kansas law provided that a sperm donor isn't considered the father only when a donor provides sperm to a licensed physician for artificial insemination of a woman who isn't the donor's wife. But Marotta had responded to a Craig’s List ad and provided his sperm, used in an informal setting, for the grand sum of $50.

Shawnee County judge District Court Judge Mary Mattivi declared in November 2016 that both women, now separated, were obligated to support the child, not M. The judge ruled that Topeka sperm donor Marotta was not legally child’s father. The judge held that the two mothers of the child were jointly responsible for child support. Marotta accumulated over four years of legal fees to defend himself against liability for child support--over $10,000. Mind you, the two mothers paid him $50 for his sperm--and made the purchase using a Craig's List ad

See Luke Ranker, Topeka Capital Journal (online), "Shawnee County judge: Topeka sperm donor William Marotta not legally child’s father." http://tinyurl.com/y7ckcedj