Donating sperm is supposed to be one of two things: 1) A great way to raise some extra cash or 2) A kind gesture to help a couple achieve their parenting dreams.

One thing it’s not supposed to lead to: A lawsuit for owed child support.

The arrangement between sperm donors and couples seeking fertility treatment usually means that the donor relinquishes parental rights and financial responsibility for any of the children produced by his seed.

That’s the impression William Marotta (pictured above) of Topeka, Kansas had when he responded to a Craigslist ad put out by a lesbian couple seeking a sperm donor, according to the Topeka Capital-Journal.

But now that one of the women involved in his transaction has fallen on hard times and applied for Medicaid for the daughter who was created with Marotta’s sperm, the state of Kansas is now SUING him for child support.

Here are the important details from the Capital-Journal:

Marotta recalled Monday how he donated sperm in March 2009 to a Topeka lesbian couple after responding to an ad they had placed on Craigslist. Marotta and the women, Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, signed an agreement relinquishing all parental rights and responsibilities regarding the child, a daughter Schreiner bore after being artificially inseminated.

The Kansas Department for Children and Families is now trying to have Marotta declared the 3-year-old girl’s father and forced to pay child support. The state contends the agreement is moot because those involved failed to meet the requirement of Kansas statute 23-2208(f) that Schreiner have a licensed physician perform the artificial insemination.

At the time Marotta made the sperm donation, Bauer and Schreiner had been together for eight years and already had adopted several other children. Schreiner stayed home with the children while Bauer worked. The couple split in December 2010, but continue to co-parent their eight children, who range in age from 3 months to 25 years.

Bauer was diagnosed this past March with what she only would describe as “a significant illness” that prevents her from working. Schreiner then went to the state to obtain health insurance for their daughter. The DCF demanded Schreiner provide the sperm donor’s name, claiming if she didn’t it would deny any health benefits because she was withholding information.

Hold up. So this lesbian couple had adopted SEVERAL other children with one working parent and decided to go ahead and create an artificially inseminated child ON TOP OF THAT? And then, the ladies went ahead and split up after 8 years and 8 babies?

You know, there’s something SERIOUSLY wrong here. These ladies should’ve never been allowed to rack up this many kids by adoption agencies.

This is Nadya Suleman all over again.

While it’s unfair that Marotta is being dragged into this after he *ahem* fulfilled his original obligation, we can’t help but think that the little girl would be better off with him and his wife. The girl’s mothers barely seem to have a grasp on things at home.

But if Kansas is successful in its suit against Marotta, that could really deter men from becoming sperm donors, which would put couples (same-sex and heterosexual) dealing with infertility woes in a very disadvantaged position.