Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog

Editor: Gerry W. Beyer
Texas Tech Univ. School of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Monday, February 3, 2014

Marotta Responds to the Verdict

MarotaAs I previously discussed, a Shawnee County District Court Judge has ruled that Marotta is the presumptive father of the child and is subject to paying child support because he and the couple failed to comply with the statutory requirement that a licensed physician be used in the artificial insemination process.

 

Now, Marotta responds to the judgment saying “I had no idea whether they were using a physician or not. But like the other two parties, Angela and Jennifer, when we sat down and interviewed each other and signed that contract, we all thought this would take care of any possibilities like what’s happening now.” He continues to express his opinion regarding the verdict “They’re still wrong. I’m not a father. I’m not a parent. I’m not involved with the family. I was a donor."

 

Marotta's attorney was surprised by the ruling because a paternity test has not been done yet. Moreover, he claims that the validity of the contract was never addressed. Marotta is planning to start the appeal process and is refusing to pay the $200 a month of court ordered child support until the process is complete.

See Macradee Aegerter, Sperm Donor Speaks About Judge's Child Support Ruling, Fox 4 News,  Jan. 23, 2014.

Special thanks to Brian Cohan (Attorney at Law, Law Offices of Brian J. Cohan, P.C.) for bringing this article to my attention.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/trusts_estates_prof/2014/02/marotta-responds-to-the-verdict.html

Current Events, New Cases | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef01a73d6dd6cc970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Marotta Responds to the Verdict:

Comments

Post a comment