The Capital Journal published<\/a>, \u201cThe Kansas Supreme Court has ordered a Shawnee County District Court to conduct a hearing to determine whether genetic testing of William Marotta is in the best interest of the child he allegedly fathered through a sperm donation.\u00a0 The court, in a split decision released this past Friday, negated a May 2014 ruling by Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi ordering Marotta to undergo genetic testing to determine if he is, in fact, the father of the now 4-year-old child.\u201d<\/p>\nThe Kansas Department of Children and Families still maintains that if Marotta is the biological father, he must pay up.<\/p>\n
The Capital Journal went on to report, \u201cMarotta claimed he had signed a contract forfeiting all rights to fatherhood, but the state DCF claimed he was still liable for child support \u2014 a position supported by Mattivi\u2019s ruling.\u201d The article also pointed out, \u201cMattivi ruled the contract between Marotta, Schreiner and her female partner was moot because the women didn\u2019t follow a 1994 Kansas statute that Mattivi said required a licensed physician to perform the artificial insemination in cases involving sperm donors.\u201d<\/p>\n
When the state made a motion to mandate genetic testing for Marotta, his defense sued to stop it.\u00a0 The defense underscored a \u201cRoss Hearing,\u201d which concludes if genetic testing is in the \u201cbest interest of a child.\u201d<\/p>\n
And it got noticed.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn a majority order written by Supreme Court Chief Justice Lawton Nuss, the high court ruled that Kansas law dictates that the best interests of a child must prevail in determining parental rights and obligations,\u201d Van Dyke reported.<\/p>\n
For these legal proceedings, Nuss wrote, \u2018\u201cRoss held that the shifting of parental roles from a presumed parent to a biological parent could be detrimental to the emotional and physical well-being of any child, thus necessitating a hearing to determine if the shifting is in the best interests of the child.\u201d\u2019<\/p>\n
The next court- ordered step is for Shawnee County District Court Judge Mary Mattivi to conduct the \u201cRoss Hearing.\u201d<\/p>\n
Obviously, there is a clear public opinion divide.<\/p>\n
One group says Marotta\u2019s sperm donation was nothing more than helping a lesbian couple conceive and he should not be forced to pay for child support.\u00a0 The other consensus argues Marotta is responsible because he should have done his legal due diligence before donating his sperm.<\/p>\n
<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Kansas Supreme Court [\u2026]<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,13,1],"tags":[23,25,51,85,112,117,124,125,214,215,256],"class_list":["post-335","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ivf","category-sperm-donation-2","category-uncategorized","tag-artificial-insemination","tag-assisted-reproduction","tag-craigslist-sperm-donor","tag-fertility","tag-in-vitro-fertilization","tag-infertility","tag-iui","tag-ivf","tag-sperm-donation","tag-sperm-donor","tag-william-marotta"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/surrogacy-lawyer.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/335","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/surrogacy-lawyer.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/surrogacy-lawyer.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/surrogacy-lawyer.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/surrogacy-lawyer.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=335"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/surrogacy-lawyer.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/335\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/surrogacy-lawyer.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/surrogacy-lawyer.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=335"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/surrogacy-lawyer.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"11860837\"](\"https:\/\/surrogacy-lawyer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/06\/11860837-300x198.jpg\")
<\/a>Van Dyke wrote, \u201cToday, that child is in the middle of a state lawsuit. The Kansas Department of Children and Families has filed a child support claim against the sperm donor for the couple\u2019s now 3-year-old girl, despite a signed contract waiving his parenting responsibilities.\u201d<\/p>\n