Professor Nagel Sires 22 Children

A little over a decade ago the film director Spike Lee made a movie which was titled She Hate Me. Among other things this film depicted the plight of a desperate biotech executive who, running into political, racial and financial problems at work, starts a lucrative side hustle of being the sperm donor for (primarily) lesbian women looking to conceive and carry a pregnancy to term. The movie's hook was that the executive and many of his clients preferred that the actual impregnation occurred in the old-fashioned face to face "hands-on" way. Well it wasn't always face to face strictly speaking (snicker) but no turkey basters, laboratories or other artificial methods were involved, thank you very much. I watched this movie mostly for Dania Ramirez, Monica Bellucci and Kerry Washington, all of whom are as far as I'm concerned, good enough reasons to watch most movies. Critics generally panned She Hate Me as dumb, unrealistic and of course "misogynistic". All the "serious" critics and sexuality "experts" told us that such a thing would never happen. Lesbians would never ever ever do such a thing. After all, by definition lesbians are not interested in intimate or romantic contact with a man, right? This film was just fevered sexist fantasy no doubt inspired by male fears over the rightfully lessening cultural and economic importance of masculinity. The movie was not only a critical flop but a financial one as well. And beautiful actresses not withstanding I would have to admit that the movie was not Lee's best work. Not by a long shot.  It was actually a film that made me think that I should probably wait to see what lots of other people thought of a Spike Lee film before I spent money or time on it. Well sometimes life is just as strange as fiction. In New York, some folks who apparently watched She Hate Me a few times too many have shown that the central premise of Lee's film actually does work for some people. 

On a busy night last week at the Target on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, Ari Nagel, 40, emerged from the men’s bathroom looking a little flushed and quite pleased with himself. “It’s better when it’s fresh,” he told them. “It” is Nagel’s semen, and it’s in demand. The 6-foot-2 CUNY Kingsborough math professor has served as a sperm donor for dozens of locals, siring 22 kids over the past 12 years with 18 women of various backgrounds. For lesbian couples and single ladies looking to have a baby without the expense of going through a sperm bank (which can run in the thousands of dollars), he’s the No. 1 dad. “This isn’t time-consuming, and I’m doing it anyway,” he says of his hands-on hobby. “It’s very easy for me to do.” His oldest child, now 12, was conceived with a woman he was in a committed relationship with, but all of his offspring since, he says, have resulted from his donations.

About half the time, he provides his seed the old-fashioned way. Sometimes, a lesbian looking to conceive will have her partner in the bed for moral support while she and Nagel engage in intercourse. “She’s never slept with a guy before, so the partner’s in bed, holding her hand,” Nagel explains. “Sometimes, it could be a little painful, then after a few times, they’re comfortable to do it on their own.” Other times, he supplies his goods in a cup, which he prefers. And Nagel’s seed-sowing isn’t a drain on his love life. He doesn’t make a point of mentioning it on dates, but when it comes up, ladies typically don’t mind. “Never underestimate the desperation of a single woman on the Upper West Side,” he says.

But it’s not all sunshine and babies. The first five women he worked with successfully sued him for child support, and nearly half of his paycheck is garnished for his offspring. “I don’t know what’s more surprising: that five sued or that 17 didn’t,” Nagel says. “They were all well aware there was no financial obligation on my part. They all promise in advance they won’t sue.” Crystal, a Connecticut woman who has two sons, 6 and 7, by Nagel, says she wasn’t aware of any such arrangement.

The 45-year-old mom, who took Nagel to court for child support, says that she was expecting to co-parent with him and that she didn’t know of his plans to father an entire baseball team. Nagel’s progeny isn’t limited to the tri-state area. He has kids in Florida, Illinois, Virginia, Connecticut and Israel. Some he sees once a week, some he sees once a year, some he’s never met.

I don't really care how people live their lives. And I don't care about how many children any person has or doesn't have. That is a personal decision. If you have the time and resources to raise and support your children go for it. As the song goes, it's your thing. Do what you want to do. I can't tell you who to sock it to. But one thing that is worth mentioning is that Nagel and the women with whom he's interacting are deliberately depriving the children of a parent or at least of a father. There are consequences to running around and being irresponsible that don't just impact the adults who are involved. At the extremes this sort of behavior raises the chances, however slightly, of accidental incest as there are a number of half-siblings created who will not know each other or grow up together. Ugh. But even putting that aside I've always thought that it's just a crappy thing to do to bring a child into the world when you lack the ability or desire to build a parental relationship with that child. And it turns out that Professor Nagel is still married. So you can throw adultery into the mix as well. We've written before about men who acted in good faith as sperm donors for lesbians or single heterosexual women. Some of these men later get sued by the state or the women for child support. In many of those cases the men had either a written agreement or verbal understanding with the women that they would not be a father in any sort of way. The women changed their minds or the state big footed its way into what was a private relationship. In those cases I do think the men got a raw deal. But in Nagel's case I think he's just a fool. He deserves whatever comes his way. As far as the women are concerned I think it is amusing and a little sad that in a time where women complain loudly and incessantly about men who impregnate them and disappear, several women are lining up to be impregnated by a man who will disappear and not be a father to the resulting children. I guess it all depends which men are doing the pumping and dumping. There are apparently a lot of desperate and yet picky women out there. People are strange.

Though she has yet to actually meet Nagel, Simmons has no qualms about the notoriety of the man comedian Chris Hardwick recently called “Johnny Peopleseed.” She says, “I’m OK with [Nagel’s newfound fame]. I’m OK with people knowing who my child’s father is, because I know he’s a great man.” Blandine Rodney, a 43-year-old Brooklyn nurse who wants a child with the college math professor, agrees. “He’s handsome, he’s a genius. I’d be proud to have my child say Ari is his father.” The divorcée, like all of the other women The Post spoke to, is black (Several of Nagel’s 22 children have black mothers). “Someone said [to me] he’s trying to whitewash the black community,” says Rodney. “It’s not whitewashing! More white men should give sperm to women who need it.”

LINK1

LINK2

What are your thoughts?

Kansas: Who's Your Daddy???

What does it mean to be a father?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/father

A male person whose sperm unites with an egg, resulting in the conception of a child.
A man who adopts a child.
A man who raises a child.

Ideally I think the first and third definitions of that word should be found in the same man. But for better or worse times have changed. Most children born to women under thirty are being raised in single parent (primarily mother only) homes. Women who are lesbian or bisexual are marrying each other and bearing children or, in states where such marriages are not recognized, living together cobbling together piecemeal, such legal recognition as they can get.

I generally don't care about such changes though I'm not completely convinced they're good for the children involved or for society as a whole. I'm somewhat conservative socially. But it's not my life and the kids involved aren't mine so whatever the adults want to do in pursuit of their own happiness is more or less just dandy with me, provided they and their kids keep their hands out of my wallet and do not try to tell me what to think.

Of course, biology being what it is, it isn't possible for anyone in a gay male couple to bear children or for anyone in a lesbian couple to sire children. Those actions must be taken with the help of others, i.e. often surrogate mothers or sperm donors. Presumably, unless you happen to be a polygamist looking to deepen his bench, two's company and three's a crowd. The surrogate/donor is usually not asked to be a part of the gay/lesbian couple's life or the child's life. The surrogate/donor might be asked to sign a document giving away rights. Everyone's different of course but many state laws do not recognize more than one mother and one father nor do they accept "gender neutral" roles for father and mother.

So far so good, right? Well not so fast. In Kansas, this brave new world hit a speed bump when the happy lesbian couple depicted above broke up. The woman who wasn't the biological mother of a three year old girl came down with an undisclosed illness that prevented her from working and thus providing support to this girl (they have others). So the couple did what thousands of people do and applied for assistance from the State of Kansas. And the State of Kansas did what many states do and looked for the nearest man to shake down for support. In this case that turned out to be one William Marotta, the man who was the sperm donor.

A lesbian couple who found a sperm donor on Craigslist three years ago never meant the man to be any more than just that, and they are supporting his fight against the state’s request he pay child support.

“We’re kind of at a loss,” Topekan Angela Bauer, 40, said Saturday, speaking on behalf of her and her former partner, Jennifer Schreiner. “We are going to support him in whatever action he wants to go forward with.”The Kansas Department for Children and Families has filed a child support claim against Topekan William Marotta, who provided sperm used to artificially inseminate Schreiner. Bauer and Schreiner, 34, placed an ad for a sperm donor on Craigslist in March 2009.

Marotta responded, agreeing to relinquish all parental rights, including financial responsibility to the child.After the couple filed for assistance earlier this year, the state welfare agency demanded they provide the donor’s name so it could collect child support. The state has that authority, court documents state, because the insemination wasn’t performed by a licensed physician, thus making the contract void.

Without the donor’s name, the department told the women, it wouldn’t provide health benefits to their now 3-year-old girl — something Bauer no longer can provide because a diagnosis has left her incapable of working and in and out of rehabilitation since March.“This was a wonderful opportunity with a guy with an admirable, giving character who wanted nothing more than to help us have a child,” she said. “I feel like the state of Kansas has made a mess out of the situation.”

LINK

Marotta, needless to say, wasn't overly ecstatic about the state trying to take money from him for child support. He may have tried to do the right thing but he didn't dot the i's and cross the t's. As far as Kansas is concerned, the music has stopped and he has no chair. The law is the law. Inspector Javert or Stannis Baratheon would understand but Marotta does not.

In the long run, I think this will be a good thing, but I'm the one getting squashed," Marotta said. "I can't even believe it's gone this far at this point, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it."#Though his attorneys, Benoit Swinnen and Hannah Schroller, are charging him reduced rates, Marotta said he expects the legal fees to eventually be more than he can afford. He is predominantly a mechanic but said he is currently working in a different field. He and his wife, Kimberly, have no biological children but care for foster children.#"I've already paid more than 10 percent of my yearly salary, and I don't know many folks who are willing to give up more than 10 percent of their yearly income," he said.#

The state contends the agreement between Marotta and the women is not valid because Kansas law requires a licensed physician to perform artificial insemination.#

"Speaking generally, all individuals who apply for taxpayer-funded benefits through DCF are asked to cooperate with child support enforcement efforts," Angela de Rocha, a spokeswoman for the Kansas Department for Children and Families, said in a statement. "If a sperm donor makes his contribution through a licensed physician and a child is conceived, the donor is held harmless under state statue. In cases where the parties do not go through a physician or a clinic, there remains the question of who actually is the father of a child or children.

LINK

This is a mess. Marotta never intended to be a father to the child and from what I can tell has not been. I don't think the law is designed for this unique situation. But I also know that once this is adjudicated, the state and/or Marotta's employer won't care about anything other than making sure an exact amount of money is extracted from Marotta's paycheck at least once or twice a month for the next fifteen years or so. I think that Bauer, the woman who can't work because of her medical issue, is the person the state should be going after. I don't think too many women who needed child support from a man would be overly sympathetic were that man to claim some sort of disability and resulting inability to work. More importantly I know the state wouldn't be too understanding. In fact the state might even do something as unfriendly as garnishing wages or other income or even put the man in jail until he remembered other funds he had. So why should this case be any different? This raises other questions.

Kansas does not recognize gay marriages. In its zeal to take money from someone it sees as a "deadbeat dad", could it be on the verge of unintentionally recognizing gay/polygamous marriages? Kansas is saying that someone who is not legally married to the women and isn't acting as a father, nevertheless has responsibilities that would normally accrue to a father or ex-husband. Interesting. As two people of the same gender can't create life, are pro-gay marriage partisans willing to help update child support laws so that it would be crystal clear that sperm donors only agree to use of their sperm and freely divest themselves from any fatherly financial responsibilities?  But wait there's more!

Why wouldn't such new laws also be available to heterosexual men and women? This brings up the "choice for men" debate. Should a heterosexual man be able to stipulate to a heterosexual woman that he is only interested in sex? If a woman decides to carry any pregnancy to term, the donor would have no legal or financial responsibility. If a man can say that to a lesbian couple he's assisting, why couldn't he say that to a heterosexual woman he's seeing? Should we rework the entire child support system to make marriage (gay or straight) the only structure in which child support will be ordered and enforced?

Perhaps this Kansas situation is an excellent argument FOR gay marriage. If the women were legally married there would be less chance of an outsider being held responsible for child support. If Kansas prevails here, I imagine that there will soon be fewer or lower quality sperm donors to be found. But if you're trolling for baby daddies on Craigslist, quality is probably not your highest goal. Anyway go ahead, play Solomon.

Thoughts?

What's the right thing to do here?

Should sperm donation always be anonymous?

Should the man pay child support?

Should a man be able to donate sperm and forever avoid fatherly responsibilities?

Should the non-biological mother pay child support?

Is Leon Walker a Criminal?

If I call from work and the phone is busy

I never, never, never, never, never ask who was on the line (oh no)

If I get home late she don’t ask any questions (no she don’t, you know why)

Cause she’s got her thing going and you know I’ve got mine

-Isaac Hayes “One Big Unhappy Family”

Married people lose some freedom of action and privacy. That’s life. A marriage where one spouse is constantly telling the other one to mind his or her own business is one that probably won’t last. Her business becomes his business and vice versa. On the other hand married or not, people still are individuals and have some expectation of privacy, don’t they?

Leon Walker worried that his wife Clara was cheating on him with her allegedly abusive second husband. He decided to check her email accounts. He found proof of her affair and notified her first ex-husband, who decided to use this information in a custody dispute. Ex #1 was supposedly concerned that his child was being exposed to possible abuse by Ex #2. Leon was also allegedly apprehensive about his own child's safety.

So what right? This is nothing new. Some happy or trusting spouses have joint email accounts which either may use. They sometimes share their passwords with each other. Less trusting or more private spouses often keep an eye on each other and may even occasionally surreptitiously check emails, text messages, voicemails, etc. Morally such actions may be somewhat dubious but it’s not like the police are going to arrest you or the local prosecutor will try to convict you of hacking or spying or anything like that. Well not usually anyway….  

 

Free Press Article 

Legal experts say it's the first time the statute has been used in a domestic case, and it might be hard to prove. "It's going to be interesting because there are no clear legal answers here," said Frederick Lane, a Vermont attorney and nationally recognized expert who has published five books on electronic privacy. The fact that the two still were living together, and that Leon Walker had routine access to the computer, may help him, Lane said.

"I would guess there is enough gray area to suggest that she could not have an absolute expectation of privacy," he said.

About 45% of divorce cases involve some snooping -- and gathering -- of e-mail, Facebook and other online material, Lane said. But he added that those are generally used by the warring parties for civil reasons -- not for criminal prosecution.

I would think similar actions could take place in almost any breakup as people seek information that they can use for greater leverage in divorce or custody hearings. Both men and women have been known to lie. What was sharing a password two years ago when the marriage was happy could become an invasion of privacy when the couple decides to divorce. It appears to me that the prosecutor is using the law incorrectly here. So far judges have refused to throw out the charges.

Computer Crime Law 

I don’t understand how a man can be charged with hacking into a computer that was either paid for by him or may be joint marital property. The computer also exists in a location that is either his or jointly owned/rented.  This criminal case could make divorces even more contentious than they already are since the option of jailing someone along with divorcing them would be incredibly tempting for many people who aren’t saints. And I don’t know too many saints.

BTW Adultery is still against the law in Michigan.  It is a felony.

But the prosecutor has not charged the woman with the crime of adultery.

Is this an appropriate application of the Michigan computer crime law? Does this man deserve five years in prison? Would you change your opinion if the genders were reversed and the woman was facing possible incarceration for snooping? Does a spouse have a right (legal or moral) to know if his or her partner is cheating? Should the woman be charged with adultery?