Where Art Thou, O Solomon?

By Rod Dreher • December 31, 2012, 3:39 PM

The law struggles to keep up with the revolution:

A sperm donor has been ordered to pay child support for the biological daughter he fathered to a lesbian couple who found him via Craigslist.

Angela Bauer, 40, and partner Jennifer Schreiner, 34, placed an ad on the site three years ago for a donor which was answered by William Marotta.

‘We are foster and adoptive parents and now we desire to share a pregnancy and birth together,’ Bauer wrote in the online posting.

Mr Marotta provided sperm which was used for artificial insemination by Ms Schreiner. In return, he gave up parental rights including financial duties for the child.

That wasn’t the end of the story for this skeezy bunch. The lesbian couple broke up in 2010, and the one listed on the child’s birth certificate as the sole custodian is now trying to get welfare benefits for the child. Lo:

The legal agreement that the three made in 2009 was deemed invalid by Kansas state because they did not use a certified doctor for the insemination.

So now Mr. Test Tube Babydaddy is going to have to pay child support. One of the lesbians — the babymama in the case at issue — has apparently decided that she’d rather be with a man, so this is who she walked out on:

Ms Bauer and Ms Schreiner had been together for eight years and adopted eight children. They ended their relationship in 2010 but continue to co-parent their sons and daughters who range from three months to 25 years old.

Eight children! What a freaking mess.

Posted in Culture, Family. Tagged lesbian, Sexual Revolution, sperm donor.

42 Responses to Where Art Thou, O Solomon?

EngineerScotty says:

December 31, 2012 at 3:47 pm

I would think that sperm donors (meaning: men who voluntarily donate sperm for purposes of artificial insemination of women whose partners cannot provide their own) ought to receive statutory protection against this sort of thing. Egg donors as well.

(This doesn’t apply to the more colloquial use of the term, meaning deadbeat dads).

You sleep with someone and get pregnant, or get someone else pregnant, then you’re on the hook for the kid. But voluntary medical donations of gametes ought to be a different story.

The sexual orientation of the parents in this case ought not matter, this would be just as problematic were a straight couple, he with a low sperm count or other male infertility problem, to use a sperm donor to conceive, and then subsequently divorce and sue the donor for child support.
EngineerScotty says:

December 31, 2012 at 3:49 pm

That said, marriage might have helped here. Had a married couple adopted the child, rather than a woman and her domestic partner (whether another woman or a man), both adoptive parents would be responsible for the children even after a divorce (unless a divorce decree provided otherwise).
Fred says:

December 31, 2012 at 3:52 pm

I’d like to hear Our Working Boy’s take on fertility treatments/IVF for infertile married couples.

[Note from Rod: I agree with the Catholic Church's view on the matter. -- RD]
Isaac Hess says:

December 31, 2012 at 4:01 pm

First, that line from Romeo and Juliet (“wherefore art thou Romeo”) means “Why are you Romeo,” not “Where are you Romeo,” so I think it doesn’t make sense in this instance.

Now that I’ve got that out of the way, a personal story: I’ve struggled for years to come to terms with our new reproductive technologies. My wife and I were unable to have children of our own. We tried for years and years, and tried a variety of infertility treatments, with no luck. Eventually we reached the stage where in vitro fertilization was our last option.

I struggled with this. The entire procedure seemed morally ambiguous, and its existence allows what I consider the unnatural (and immoral) creation of and children, such as what you outlined above.

For about a year I held back, refusing to consider it. Finally, my wife and I convinced me to try it, and my baby girl was just born a week ago, on Christmas Eve. When I look into her eyes, I am so grateful for technology that allowed us to have a baby. She is our child, our own flesh and blood, something that would have been impossible without the technology. And I am so grateful. I consider it a blessing, and thank God for her every day.

It’s just a fact that all technology has its good and bad uses. They all eventually become a pandora’s box with good and bad inside.
Peter B. Nelson says:

December 31, 2012 at 4:18 pm

I think you left out several important observations from the Daily Mail article (gotta love that Daily Mail) and I’ll make a third.

1. Ms. Schreiner is the child’s birth mother. As the birth father is the principle subject of the story, surely the birth mother warrants a particular emphasis?

2. Despite the headline, Ms. Schreiner is not a lesbian, she’s a bisexual. She broke up with her female partner in 2010 and her current partner is a man, of whom the Daily Mail obligingly serves a photograph (gotta love that Daily Mail).

Mind bender: can a bisexual woman be one half of a “lesbian couple?” Does the adjective describe the partners or the partnership? Both? Either? Or do we need new adjectives to describe mixed couples?

3. Nowhere in the Daily Mail article are the child’s wishes reported. Too much of the alternative-marriage alternative-family discussion revolves around the feelings desires of adults. When it comes to this subject the needs and hopes of the hapless children remain as unreported and unregarded as they are on the subject of divorce or mandatory kindergarten.
Luke Daxon says:

December 31, 2012 at 4:18 pm

We really ain’t seen nothing yet Rod. Just wait until the apostles of sexual-liberation persuade the courts of the merits of incestuous marriage. And let’s not go near polygamy. I know, I know. It sounds ludicrous and still does. But it sounds less so than it did 5 years ago, let alone 10 or 20.

Another traditionalist Tory friend and I once joked that, however ghastly this country’s culture had become by the 1990s (this being the UK) we would one day look back on that decade with nostalgia. And you know what? He was bang on the money. I remember the dog days of the John Major years with utter revulsion, awash as it was with Ecstacy, awful music and all-round self indulgence. Yet Britain in the mid-90s now seems like a edenic vision, straight out of the mind of Constable. The terrible reality is that one day I will get misty eyed about the Cameron/Clegg epoch. I can not bear to imagine how this will come to pass or where Britain will be when it happens (probably looking like a horrible anglicised version of the Repo Man, with Hugh Grant in the Harry Dean Stanton role). I just know it will be. Does any one on your side of the pond have similar thoughts?

I used to look down to on the paranoia that comes out of sites like Vigilant Citizen. I don’t know think that any more. Obviously, I don’t think the world is controlled by the Illuminati, but when he says that our culture is under the thumb of forces that are diabolical, then I’m with him on that one.

Anyway God be with us in the new year.
Noah172 says:

December 31, 2012 at 4:22 pm

Hate to be pedantic, but your post’s title is asking why Solomon is who he is, or why he is present at a given time or place: e.g., Juliet was asking Romeo why (wherefore) she had to be in love with someone from a rival clan, not where Romeo was.

[Note from Rod: I didn't know this. I will accept your pedantry, and have changed the title. -- RD]
Bryan says:

December 31, 2012 at 4:42 pm

Google “David Epstein Columbia University” and read the reader comments from the 2nd article down, from Slate, if you want a real eye-opener as to where this Cowardly New World is taking us.

Keep in mind that Epstein is still earning six figures a year as a tenured Ivy-league professor teaching “political science” to the next generation of critical-thinking-incapable Masters (and Mistresses) of the Universe. Though presumably he no longer writes columns impugning Sarah Palin’s family life for Huffington Post.
William Burns says:

December 31, 2012 at 4:58 pm

An Anglicised version of Repo Man, with Hugh Grant in the Harry Dean Stanton role? I’d pay to see that.
Derickocracy says:

December 31, 2012 at 4:59 pm

I don’t really understand why you call these people a “skeezy bunch.” Just because they did this through craigslist? I don’t know, is this really that different from going to a sperm bank for an anonymous donor?

To me, the story is that this couple was together for eight years, and adopted a lot of children and then decided to have one biologically. Is it really clear that this is a “freaking mess?” Maybe I watched the Wire too many times, but I don’t know if I really think the children in question are worse off, and I definitely am not sure we can reasonably just assume that’s the case. It says they separated but continued to co-parent, which suggests to me that they probably had an amicable separation and are handling it in a mature way. It also says that the custodial parent supported the child while working for three years but now is disabled. Is there some reason to believe that’s not true? Is it that they are just irresponsible for taking in so many children?

I don’t know, I’m just confused at the general tone you take in this post, and I don’t think you explain your disdain for these people very well, if at all.
Mike W says:

December 31, 2012 at 5:04 pm

An interesting bookend in this cynical time to the Russian’s banning adoptions of Russian children in the U.S. In both cases, you have “adults” acting for selfish and venal reasons with children the true victims.
Peter B. Nelson says:

December 31, 2012 at 5:08 pm

All kidding aside, this perfectly illustrates an earlier essay in The American Conservative by Justin Raimondo, “The Libertarian Case Against Gay Marriage.” Excerpt…

The imposition of a legal framework on the intricate web of relationships that have previously existed in the realm of freedom—that is, outside the law and entirely dependent on the trust and compliance of the individuals involved—would not only be a setback for liberty but a disaster for those it supposedly benefits: gay people themselves

There are other essays by other authors along the same lines, and his is obviously more about same-sex marriage than sperm donation, but it all comes down to the same thing: if we won’t rule ourselves according to natural law, then we will find ourselves ruled by courts of judges according to their best lights. And that right there has always been the reason for the alliance between Libertarians and conservatives.

For what it’s worth, I’m thrilled that the courts ruled the way they did in this case – a very traditional, conservative ruling. Isn’t it ironic that by advocating court-ordered child support from men to the mothers of their natural children radical feminists inadvertently reinforce the conservative model for fatherhood and sexual responsibility.
Andrea says:

December 31, 2012 at 5:54 pm

Actually not all that different from any other break up. I don’t think the guy should have to pay child support. The former lesbian partner should. But this is yet another good reason for marriage and family law to be the same in all 50 states.
Gregg Gerasimon says:

December 31, 2012 at 6:31 pm

The state creates (is creating) same sex marriage. SSM does not exist in our natural state (natural law). We are separating biology from parenting, which hasn’t been done before.

Prepare for more of this over the next years/decades as the state does everything to protect that which it creates and as it protects the parties involved when that which it creates falls apart.
Vince says:

December 31, 2012 at 7:24 pm

Anyone believe the purpose of this is to keep afloat a declining Russian population? I believe it is very interesting more and more nations such as Russia are giving away cash bonuses for having more children. I think in this age, where sex is for selfish pleasure alone and according to post modern ‘logic’ the reproductive organs have nothing to do with reproduction, that is the real story. Many are the plans in the heart of man, but in the end, it truly is the LORD’s will that prevails.
William Vorhees says:

December 31, 2012 at 7:25 pm

‘Tis a pity we live in a world with so many so easily offended or in one with playwrights of such little courage. Our modern times should otherwise be a satirist’s paradise.
M_Young says:

December 31, 2012 at 7:45 pm

Mind bender: can a bisexual woman be one half of a “lesbian couple?” Does the adjective describe the partners or the partnership?

If we would just legalize triad marriage, the woman in question may not have had to choose between her sexuality and protection of her relationship(s) under the law.
James C. says:

December 31, 2012 at 7:46 pm

Luke Daxon,

Alas, (with the exception of Adele) the music even seems worse. Did you hear the racket they were playing during the fireworks in London tonight? Godawful. We’ve fallen a long way from Elgar and Britten and Vaughn Williams.

You’re right though; I often think of the relatively innocent times of the Bill Clinton era of the 1990s! Not just economic good times and budget surpluses, either. If it can be believed, the culture has gotten even uglier, tackier, courser and more degenerate.

How about this for an example: In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act sailed through Congress with huge supermajorities and was signed by Clinton. Today, supporting DOMA is tantamount to bigotry; one might as well put in a white robe and light some crosses!

We live in different times indeed. Madonna is now quaint and stodgy, and she has discovered (with increasing desperation) that there is little envelope left to push!
alcogito says:

December 31, 2012 at 7:48 pm

“In return, he gave up parental rights including financial duties for the child.” and “The legal agreement that the three made in 2009 was deemed invalid by Kansas state because they did not use a certified doctor for the insemination.”

Sounds to me like Kansas has no respect for contracts. Kansas residents, take care.

If this “couple” adopted and continue to raise a lot of children even after the split, no doubt the children are better off than they would be in many foster homes. But greed should never be rewarded, and trying to extract money from this guy by breaking their word to him is indefensible.
Peter says:

December 31, 2012 at 8:48 pm

“You sleep with someone and get” “someone else pregnant, then you’re on the hook for the kid”.

I don’t know if I really agree with this being legally enforced where abortion on demand is available without paternal consent.
Siarlys Jenkins says:

December 31, 2012 at 8:48 pm

I have a lot of sympathy for the Roman church’s view on the matter. (NB: I sometimes use the designation “Roman” because is is not, and never has been, universal.) For one thing, children, once born, are subjects as well as, temporarily and unavoidably, objects of their upbringing, so it makes sense not to allow the generality “child” to become a mere plaything of adults egos. Also, there is good evidence that in vitro fertilization results in a higher percentage of birth defects. It seems the natural process tends to weed out at least some sperm that would result in genetic deformity should that sperm win the race.

But then there is what Isaac Hess has to say. I find it entirely impossible to argue with him. The technology was a blessing to him and his wife, and the family they make up, now with a daughter. I can’t begin to imagine that God disapproves.

I do find it a bit silly that people who don’t want to marry, or don’t want to enter into a heterosexual couple, want what comes naturally only by being one or, preferably, both. Its not quite the same as people who live together, because “we don’t need no piece of paper from the city hall,” until they decide they want spousal benefits and tax preference, then rather than marry seek a “domestic partnership” piece of paper from the city hall. (Heterosexual couples indulged that first, even before gay couples). Both were choices about human institutions, not fundamental to our biology. But still, every choice has its attendant consequences, positive and negative, convenient and inconvenient.

Then “the state of Kansas says…” I’m sorry, however silly the people involved, that is an act of petty tyranny by the state. “You didn’t go to an expensive doctor, therefore we can conveniently define an agreement entered into by mutual consent in writing to be null and void, by fiat.” That might be appealable, not as a matter of constitutional right to contract about one’s sperm, but as a simple matter of contract law.

As to the state wanting someone to dun for the cost of welfare benefits, there is a partner who took legal contractual responsibility for the child. I bet she’s denying it and siccing Kansas on the sperm donor. Kansas should make HER pay up.
Surly says:

December 31, 2012 at 8:53 pm

Derickocracy–yes, finding a sperm donor on Craigslist meets most reasonable people’s definition of skeezy. Answering a Craigslist ad soliciting sperm donations broke my skeeze-o-meter.

And I agree with whoever upthread said marriage might have helped this not be so ugly. I agree. Trainwrecks can be homo, hetero or bisexual. When there are kids involved and the parents are married, the state has a vested interest in not letting one parent skip out on financial support of the kids and sticking taxpayers with the bill.
MH - Secular Misanthropist says:

December 31, 2012 at 9:07 pm

This is not the first time I’ve heard of a non-anonymous sperm donor ending up on the hook for child support. Even with well written contracts between the parties. In a ruling I heard about a few years back, the judge said child support was a duty of a parent to the child and couldn’t be eliminated by an agreement between the parents and the donor.
Surly says:

December 31, 2012 at 9:56 pm

Oh, and by the way I agree with the Roman Catholic church on assisted reproduction. Babies are not accessories, nor are they means of self fulfillment. If you can’t have kids, find something else to do. And as a society, we need to make it easier for people to have kids in their ’20′s. Waiting longer not only raises the odds of fertility problems, it has a big problem on the back end–if you have kids late, you risk leaving them on their own at an early age, or even worse, caring for you when they are still trying to get established.

My son’s parochial school class of 60 had lost 6 parents before the kids were 16. All cancer and heart attacks–all diseases that become a lot more common at the age of 50. All of the parents who died were over 50.
Carlo says:

December 31, 2012 at 11:36 pm

Derickocracy:

“Is it really clear that this is a “freaking mess?”

Yes, sir. Crystal clear.
Ignominious says:

January 1, 2013 at 12:08 am

Rod: “Where Art Thou, O Solomon?”

I guess you’re making an allusion to that story about King Solomon and how two harlots came to him with a dispute as to who was the actual mother of a child (two children were involved, one having died in the night, and one of the women was trying to take the living child away from the other). To resolve the dispute, Solomon rendered the judgement that the child was to be cut in half, with one half given to one woman and half to the other. Immediately, the real mother was revealed because she was the one willing to surrender custody if only to save the child’s life. The other woman, being vindictive, was will to accept the deal getting just half a child.

At that point, all Israel saw that Solomon had a little wisdom.

Unfortunately, Rod, we don’t have any Solomons around today to do anything about the mess this society is turning into. Indeed, it has gone way beyond Solomon now.
Bill Michtom says:

January 1, 2013 at 1:41 am

Actually, this case would not necessarily reveal the real mother since eight can be divided in two without slicing up a child.
Bill Michtom says:

January 1, 2013 at 1:44 am

Anyone who thinks abortion is available on demand has no idea of the abortion access situation in the US, where 87% of the counties have no providers, many states provide as many road blocks as they can legally get into place and there is no universal health care.

Aside from that, a great point.
Bill Michtom says:

January 1, 2013 at 1:45 am

What alcogito says!
Bill Michtom says:

January 1, 2013 at 1:50 am

“SSM does not exist in our natural state (natural law). We are separating biology from parenting, which hasn’t been done before.”

Marriage does not exist in our “natural” state (whatever that means).

Plus, parenting, as in raising children, most certainly does exist outside of heterosexual couples: a widow with a child does not remarry and has assistance with parenting by other members of the community.
Bill Michtom says:

January 1, 2013 at 2:38 am

“Isn’t it ironic that by advocating court-ordered child support from men to the mothers of their natural children radical feminists inadvertently reinforce the conservative model for fatherhood and sexual responsibility.”

Radical feminists have nothing to do with this ruling. As usual, the ruling is a patriarchal one, in which the rights of the people involved are removed from them by a state that is renowned for imposing its morality on non-agreeing citizens.

Not to mention, the labeling of all three people as skeezy is not supported by the information. It is possible to say that the woman looking for child support is unethical, since she signed a contract and is now trying to get out of it. The other people, however, have acted ethically in regard to their contractual promises.

Kansas, OTOH is also being unethical and is facing legal action about it: “A lawyer for William Marotta argues that the state’s effort to have Marotta declared the baby’s father runs contrary to a 2007 Kansas Supreme Court ruling on sperm donors, The Topeka Capital-Journal reported.”

“The agreement also called for Bauer and Schreiner to hold Marotta harmless “for any child support payments demanded of him by any other person or entity, public or private, including any district attorney’s office or other state or county agency, regardless of the circumstances or said demand.”

“Marotta’s attorney, Hannah Schroller, said her client consulted with his wife and decided to donate free rather than take the $50.”

“the case was consistent with a 2007 case in which the Kansas Supreme Court denied parental rights to a man who sought them after providing a sperm donation under similar circumstances. A licensed physician performed the insemination in the 2007 case.

“Still, Schroller wrote that Marotta took the same actions as the man in the 2007 case did, and he — like that man — should be considered a sperm donor, not a father.”
http://bit.ly/XdlUkk

The problems seem to lie with the birth mother (not the pejorative “babymama”), Kansas’s actions, and Rod Dreher’s skeezy attitude.
Peterk says:

January 1, 2013 at 9:14 am

Thank goodness for the Daily Mail to provide us with details and photos
Luke Daxon says:

January 1, 2013 at 10:13 am

Happy new year, James C.

Alas, your reference to Madonna is all too relevant. “Like a Prayer” caused uproar in the now distant world of 1989. Yet, compared with her present incarnation, she could have passed for a young Doris Day (and no offence meant to Doris Day).

Want to see her present incarnation? Here it is. Behold puny world, the priestess of Baal.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2097020/Madonna-Super-Bowl-halftime-2012-Singer-suffers-small-slip-up.html
Carlo says:

January 1, 2013 at 12:07 pm

“Not to mention, the labeling of all three people as skeezy is not supported by the information. It is possible to say that the woman looking for child support is unethical, since she signed a contract and is now trying to get out of it. The other people, however, have acted ethically in regard to their contractual promises. ”

A quite comical statement. As if ethical behavior was a matter of contracts…
Abelard Lindsey says:

January 1, 2013 at 3:13 pm

Eight children! What a freaking mess.

Look at the bright side. This case will probably put an end to sperm donation in the U.S.
Siarlys Jenkins says:

January 1, 2013 at 3:17 pm

A contract cannot make unethical behavior ethical, but there is a matter of ethics about adhering to contracts freely entered into, and about the law respecting the duty of all parties to do so.

A contract can be rendered null and void if it is contrary to public policy, but that requires considerably more than the momentary convenience of state bureaucrats. If it were clearly established that sperm donation IS contrary to public policy, we would have a totally different situation.

But ethics and law, like law and justice, are distant cousins, not exactly on speaking terms, as Marlon Brando’s characted in “A Dry White Season” pointed out.
stef says:

January 1, 2013 at 5:23 pm

So let me get this straight – sperm donors are protected from paternity lawsuits when a doctor is involved? Obviously, AI does not need to be done by a doctor. How does the magic blanket of an MD somehow shield a sperm donor from child support responsibilities?

Seems to me if do-it-yourselfers are legally liable, then so should clinic-affiliated donors.

@Peter: How are you going to enforce any kind of “paternal rights” in an abortion? You can’t prove who the father is until after the birth.
Anna Marie says:

January 1, 2013 at 7:07 pm

The parent -child relationship is created by biology, not contract. Should one of my sons convince a woman to sign a piece of paper stating he will not be responsible for any children that resulted from sex, this would be laughed out of court. So, some guy advertising his baby batter on Craig’s list gets off the hook?
I’m sure the state of Kanas has well established legal means for someone to relinquish his parental rights and responsibilities.
Siarlys Jenkins says:

January 1, 2013 at 7:36 pm

Men aren’t entitled to paternal rights in the matter of abortion. Men can have a right of first refusal when technology is available to transfer the fetus into their abdomen, should they be willing to carry it to term in their own body. Until then, if the lady doesn’t want to carry it, no man has a right to require her to do so.

If that means a lot to him, he should make sure he and the lady are of like mind before he lies down with her. Why doesn’t the same apply to her? Because she’s not going to find herself the mother of a child growing in his body. Sorry guys, life isn’t always fair.
David J. White says:

January 1, 2013 at 8:29 pm

How are you going to enforce any kind of “paternal rights” in an abortion? You can’t prove who the father is until after the birth.

I have difficulty believing that it’s impossible to do a prenatal DNA test.
Peter says:

January 1, 2013 at 10:56 pm

“Why doesn’t the same apply to her?”

I don’t see what logic is at play here. Why can’t ladies be expected to lay with men who are of like mind? Whether that is being cool with having no input into the abortion or being a cash machine or being a meaningful father.
SusanMcN says:

January 2, 2013 at 5:30 pm

This is all about the fact that the state of Kansas is flat broke and a HUGE percentage of its population is on public assistance. The attorneys at their privately-owned child support agency is known for its strong-arm tactics. I’ve seen a father who makes mid 5 figures be assessed with thousands per month in support to remove the unemployed mother off the public dole. If the (usually) father doesn’t have an attorney (see above about poverty in the state) to arrive at a more reasonable amount than they simply become a criminal, the child isn’t cared for and the state is off the hook for providing as many benefits because “the father is responsible for that amount.”