The US State of Kansas is suing a man to pay support to the child conceived using sperm he donated to a 
couple looking for a child of their own.
William Marotta donated sperm to a lesbian couple under a written agreement that he would not be considered the father of the child nor liable for child support. A daughter, who is now three, was born to the couple, reports the Chicago Tribune.
But in October, the state of Kansas filed a petition seeking to have Mr Marotta declared the father of the child and financially responsible for her after the couple encountered money difficulties.
The case is seen as having repercussions for other sperm donors. Sperm banks routinely provide sperm to people who want to conceive a child on the understanding that the donors are not responsible for the children.
Kansas is seeking child support from Mr Marotta, including about $6,000 in medical expenses related to the child’s birth, according to its petition.
In an interview, Mr Marotta said that the state’s suit was “totally unexpected”.
He said: “The very first thing that went through my mind was that no good deed goes unpunished.”
The case has attracted national attention. Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said Wednesday “it is unfortunate and unfair” that Kansas is seeking money from a sperm donor.
“It certainly might have a negative effect on other men’s willingness to help couples who need a donor, which would be harmful to everyone,” Minter said.
“I also think it undermines everyone’s respect for the law when you see it operate so arbitrarily.”
Lawyers for Mr Marotta argue that he had no parental rights because of his agreement with the couple and cannot be held financially responsible.
They cite a 2007 case in which the Kansas Supreme Court ruled against a sperm donor seeking parental rights because he did not have any such agreement with the mother, lawyers for Mr Marotta said.
“So now, we are flipping the argument around,” Mr Marotta attorney Ben Swinnen said Wednesday.
If the father had no legal parental rights in the 2007 case, Mr Marotta should be declared to have no parental obligations in the current case, Mr Swinnen said.