#0, I have even less sympathy.

Read the article before criticizing him. Ignorance is ruining our country.

The only question that comes to my mind is ´Was he compensated?´ If he received a monetary payment, preferably in the form of a check, it would bolster his argument. As for the article´s fixation upon the lack of legal representation, providing that the terms were not onerous to either party, that seems a bit of a stretch. Finally, if the state wants to stretch the bonds of credulity to the extreme and argue that Mr. Marotta was committing an act of prostitution, well stand- by for the arrival of the circus.

With regards to the authors final argument concerning the potential for dead-beats to claim that they were only ´donating´, we already have this situation now.

Why not produce children the way the good Lord intended us to produce them? Sounds quaint and backward these days?

A simple contract written by a lawyer for $200 would have alleviated this problem.

#2, I´ve read the article. He should never have donated sperm to a couple of lesbians. Children need a father and not a make believe family.

If you´re going to make this guy pay child support, then I should be able to get child support from my adopted daughter´s biological father. Yes, he gave up his parental rights, but so did this guy. What´s the difference?

The state is pursuing him for child support because one of the lesbian mothers, now single, sought welfare payments from the state. I´m surprised the former lesbian partner hasn´t provided monetary support for the child she and her partner had. /s

Either this dude is on the hook, or the taxpayer is.

The difference, #7, is that you did the adoption legally. The courts never recognized the private agreement between the hapless father and the lesbos. Which also brings up an equally interesting question. If a baby momma can´t name who the baby daddy, is she entitled to welfare?

I hope his view stands up in court, and he avoids this stiff penalty.

a man and a woman enter into an agreement in good faith, but since a lawyer was not involved, the state decides their agreement was invalid. guess who is held to have complete financial responsibility?

Seems to me that if the state wants the sperm donor to pay child support then he should have the option of paying or taking custody of the child, especially since the 2 "moms" can´t seem to take take of the child.

The problem isn´t the contract, it´s the lack of a disinterested witness to that contract. Had they either hired a lawyer or used a physician a third party would have a contemporaneous record of the agreement.

He should not have donated sperm to this weird twosome. That does not excuse the evil and greed of these two women.

I never thought all this donation stuff was a good idea to begin with. I understand the desire to have children but if you can´t do it the regular way, then maybe you weren´t meant to.

Personally, I think he does owe support. He knew what he was doing. Next time, buddy, get it in writing if you don´t want the responsibility for your actions.

I´d be more in favor of abortion if men could have them.

Monkey spankers are on notice.

this sounds like yet another opportunity for Legal Zoom dot com. Making lemonade out of ----- well, perhaps that´s a little flawed. I´m certain they can come up with something more acceptable...

There are affordable legal services available. Obviously, his thiking was short circuited and he didn´t use his brain. (Insert double meaning)

baa baa sperm donor, have you any wool?
Yes sir, Yes sir, 3 Cups Full!!!

ewwwwwwww....

LOL, #14 didn´t read the article.

#9, the answer is yes, the baby momma can collect welfare even if she cannot identify the father. It happens all the time.
Watch an episode of the Maury show...

Make him pay.
He participated in creating a human being without ANY responsibility.
As to the baby mom getting welfare without naming the father- perhaps it is time to insist they name the daddy or NO welfare.
If some of these predator males have to pay they won´t be so anxious to spread their mediocre seed.
Also, judges can lock them up for non support and that will at least keep them off the street and prevent more baby mommas.
Harsh?
What is harsh is 70 percent illegitimacy rates in black community and 40 percent with whites.Time to stop this train wreck.
Why should taxpayer support ignorance and sloth?

I never quite, quite understood this concept of "signing away your responsibilities." Signing away your rights, yes, --- but your responsibilities correlate to somebody else´s rights, in this case, the child´s.

A child has a right to a whole constellation of natural goods from his or her parents: his identity, his name, his place in a kinship system, nurture, education, care, provision and inheritance. All of these begin with the first right: the right to a mother and father. You can´t sign away what your child needs to survive and flourish in this world.

If you don´t want to be a father, don´t put your sperm into a woman´s genital tract.

That´s simple enough, isn´t it?

I´ll vote for the child´s rights every time.

Donor answered Craig´s List ad because he was intrigued? He delivered three cupfuls?

That was some intrigue!!! /s

I read in another article last week on this same subject that said this couple has six or seven other children. If they are wanting support for all of them, you can understand why the state is putting it´s collective foot down. I don´t know the origins of the other children but possibly there will be other "fathers" taking part in the support of the offspring.

Disappointing to see Michelle´s old site refer to a father as merely a sperm donor.