Alimony from sperm donor

Only yesterday I commented on a new law on the sperm donation in the U.S. state of California, which provides an opportunity for single women to use the services of an acquainted donor instead of an anonymous one.

Despite the fact that before the insemination the woman must sign a document that waives any claims against the male donor, I have already raised some doubts about the Californian innovation. To be more precise, about whether such a refusal will have a real legal effect if the mother or a third party decides to go ahead to sue for recognition of paternity.

So here you are. In 2009, a 43-year-old auto mechanic William Marrotta responded to the call of two lesbian women from Kansas to help them to have children, having agreed to become a sperm donor for them. In the contract, signed by the parties, it was emphasized that the man was released from any moral or material obligations to the future child.

However, when women had applied for social assistance from the state, officials of the Family Department demanded the data of the sperm donor and ordered the man to pay maintenance to his daughter. The most interesting is that the women themselves don’t have any claims to the man and require nothing from him. But the state does, as it obviously believes that it defends the interests of the child, and the agreement between a woman and a man means nothing in such a situation. And now Marrott has to spend money and nerves to defend himself in court.

That's it. As the phrase going, "no good deed goes unpunished." The poor man had only wanted to help to create a complete family. So now I’m even more convinced than ever - the donation must be anonymous: in this way it’s better for everyone.