Sperm Donor Question

[Anonymous]

Here is an excerpt from a legal article:

"In 2000, the UPA was revised to remove the physician supervision requirement and include procedures conducted on non-married women to “provide certainty of nonparentage for prospective donors.”17 It clarified that donors could not sue to establish parental rights or be sued and required to support the resulting child. The revised UPA essentially eliminates donors from the “parental equation” and states that sperm donors are not legal parents if conception occurs through artificial insemination and the donor does not intend to become a parent.18 However, the revised UPA still allows a donor to contest paternity if he can prove that he lived with the child within the first two years of the child’s life and considered the child to be his offspring.19 However, few states have adopted the revised UPA to date. While most states do have laws that remove paternal rights from anonymous sperm donors and give them to the intended parents, those statutes generally do not apply if the woman is not married or a physician is not involved in the process.

Many courts are reluctant to deny parental rights to known sperm donors if they request them.20 In Jhordan C. v. Mary K., the court awarded paternity rights to a man who donated his semen to inseminate an acquaintance.21 The woman performed the insemination herself at her home and not under the direction or supervision of a licensed physician.22 After the child was born, the donor demanded monthly visits with the child and the mother reluctantly agreed. The donor later filed an action to establish paternity and visitation rights. The court ruled in the donor’s favor, determining that the donor’s parental rights were not extinguished under the applicable state statute because a physician was not involved and because the donor’s regular visits with the child established that the donor and woman acted as if the donor had some familial status with respect to the child.23 The parties in the Jhordan C. and Mary K. case did not reduce their arrangement to a writing. Therefore, the court looked to the parties’ actions to construe the intent of the arrangement.

Even in instances where the parties agree on parentage ahead of time, contracts that explicitly preclude rights for known sperm donors are not necessarily enforceable.24 In Kansas v. W.M., a same-sex couple solicited a sperm donor through Craigslist.25 The parties signed an agreement whereby the donor relinquished his paternal rights to the child. The couple performed the insemination in their home resulting in pregnancy. Prior to the birth of the child, the couple separated and the birth mother applied for benefits with the Kansas Department of Children and Families (“DCF”). After the birth of the child, DCF filed a petition to declare the sperm donor as the natural father of the child and sought an order for child support and a judgment for payment of medical expenses to DCF for past benefits. Under the Kansas Parentage Act, much like the original UPA, a sperm donor is not deemed the natural father of a resulting child only if the semen is provided to a licensed physician for artificial insemination and the woman is married.26 Here, the court determined that despite the written agreement to the contrary, the donor was the natural father because the insemination was not conducted through a physician and the woman involved was not married. Therefore, the donor was liable to DCF for child support and past benefits."

source:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6170122/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is an excerpt from a legal article:

"In 2000, the UPA was revised to remove the physician supervision requirement and include procedures conducted on non-married women to “provide certainty of nonparentage for prospective donors.”17 It clarified that donors could not sue to establish parental rights or be sued and required to support the resulting child. The revised UPA essentially eliminates donors from the “parental equation” and states that sperm donors are not legal parents if conception occurs through artificial insemination and the donor does not intend to become a parent.18 However, the revised UPA still allows a donor to contest paternity if he can prove that he lived with the child within the first two years of the child’s life and considered the child to be his offspring.19 However, few states have adopted the revised UPA to date. While most states do have laws that remove paternal rights from anonymous sperm donors and give them to the intended parents, those statutes generally do not apply if the woman is not married or a physician is not involved in the process.

Many courts are reluctant to deny parental rights to known sperm donors if they request them.20 In Jhordan C. v. Mary K., the court awarded paternity rights to a man who donated his semen to inseminate an acquaintance.21 The woman performed the insemination herself at her home and not under the direction or supervision of a licensed physician.22 After the child was born, the donor demanded monthly visits with the child and the mother reluctantly agreed. The donor later filed an action to establish paternity and visitation rights. The court ruled in the donor’s favor, determining that the donor’s parental rights were not extinguished under the applicable state statute because a physician was not involved and because the donor’s regular visits with the child established that the donor and woman acted as if the donor had some familial status with respect to the child.23 The parties in the Jhordan C. and Mary K. case did not reduce their arrangement to a writing. Therefore, the court looked to the parties’ actions to construe the intent of the arrangement.

Even in instances where the parties agree on parentage ahead of time, contracts that explicitly preclude rights for known sperm donors are not necessarily enforceable.24 In Kansas v. W.M., a same-sex couple solicited a sperm donor through Craigslist.25 The parties signed an agreement whereby the donor relinquished his paternal rights to the child. The couple performed the insemination in their home resulting in pregnancy. Prior to the birth of the child, the couple separated and the birth mother applied for benefits with the Kansas Department of Children and Families (“DCF”). After the birth of the child, DCF filed a petition to declare the sperm donor as the natural father of the child and sought an order for child support and a judgment for payment of medical expenses to DCF for past benefits. Under the Kansas Parentage Act, much like the original UPA, a sperm donor is not deemed the natural father of a resulting child only if the semen is provided to a licensed physician for artificial insemination and the woman is married.26 Here, the court determined that despite the written agreement to the contrary, the donor was the natural father because the insemination was not conducted through a physician and the woman involved was not married. Therefore, the donor was liable to DCF for child support and past benefits."

source:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6170122/

PP who used a known donor here - this is why you do it using an RE and a cryobank.

[Anonymous]

We used anon for just that reason. Also raising a child is sacrifice and hard work. When they become adorable older children sometimes there is an interest. We wanted a clear line.

[Anonymous]

Thank you all again. Clearly, there is a lot to consider. And PP, thank you so much for the detailed guidance and sharing your experience. I have contacted the attorney and will be having a session soon to proceed appropriately. I do appreciate each of you who have responded.

[Anonymous]

Columbia Fertility will allow known donors to do all their testing & bank the sperm directly through them. That’s why we switched to them from SG, who required going through an outside sperm bank which made things way more expensive, time consuming, and complicated. CFA will still require all the same testing and a psych evaluation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was a donor some years ago. I would advise against it. The cases where the dad has later been on the hook to support the kid are always when he had some form of existing relationship with the mom. I would definitely consult an attorney.

While her request is flattering, there are plenty of high quality donors out there for her to use.

I agree. I see no reason for someone to go with a friend for a donor. Especially one who obviously has no interest in forming any type of parental relationship. That is just going to be confusing for the kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a donor some years ago. I would advise against it. The cases where the dad has later been on the hook to support the kid are always when he had some form of existing relationship with the mom. I would definitely consult an attorney.

While her request is flattering, there are plenty of high quality donors out there for her to use.

I agree. I see no reason for someone to go with a friend for a donor. Especially one who obviously has no interest in forming any type of parental relationship. That is just going to be confusing for the kid.

OP. We are still talking this through. In the meantime, I have met with an attorney and having a contract drawn up and have had blood work done to see if I can be a donor. I, too, worry that this could be confusing to the child and contract or not, things may take a turn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a donor some years ago. I would advise against it. The cases where the dad has later been on the hook to support the kid are always when he had some form of existing relationship with the mom. I would definitely consult an attorney.

While her request is flattering, there are plenty of high quality donors out there for her to use.

I agree. I see no reason for someone to go with a friend for a donor. Especially one who obviously has no interest in forming any type of parental relationship. That is just going to be confusing for the kid.

Why would it be more confusing for the child than an anonymous donor? In fact, most of the research out there shows that some level of openness with the donor is better for the child’s psychology and self-identity than fully anonymous donation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a donor some years ago. I would advise against it. The cases where the dad has later been on the hook to support the kid are always when he had some form of existing relationship with the mom. I would definitely consult an attorney.

While her request is flattering, there are plenty of high quality donors out there for her to use.

I agree. I see no reason for someone to go with a friend for a donor. Especially one who obviously has no interest in forming any type of parental relationship. That is just going to be confusing for the kid.

Why would it be more confusing for the child than an anonymous donor? In fact, most of the research out there shows that some level of openness with the donor is better for the child’s psychology and self-identity than fully anonymous donation.

I am reading studies on that. I think the confusion could well be, if we were to connect as his biological father, but I was taking no responsibility for supporting him or assuming a father relationship, he/she could be confused and feel devalued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a donor some years ago. I would advise against it. The cases where the dad has later been on the hook to support the kid are always when he had some form of existing relationship with the mom. I would definitely consult an attorney.

While her request is flattering, there are plenty of high quality donors out there for her to use.

I agree. I see no reason for someone to go with a friend for a donor. Especially one who obviously has no interest in forming any type of parental relationship. That is just going to be confusing for the kid.

Why would it be more confusing for the child than an anonymous donor? In fact, most of the research out there shows that some level of openness with the donor is better for the child’s psychology and self-identity than fully anonymous donation.

I am reading studies on that. I think the confusion could well be, if we were to connect as his biological father, but I was taking no responsibility for supporting him or assuming a father relationship, he/she could be confused and feel devalued.

He will not be the father, he will be the donor. That is the difference. The children will have two loving parents and know that a “helper” allowed them to be born. If the donor was anonymous they would not know anything about 50% of their genetics until age 18 or ever. They may also find they have 50+ half siblings, which happens too often. With a known donor, they will always know their genetic origins and there’s no chance of discovering dozens of siblings, since the mothers know this man well.

The research all shows that donor conceived children who know they are donor conceived from a young age and are taught about it openly thrive just as well as conventionally conceived children; the issue arises when it’s kept secret and they find out well into adulthood. An increasing amount of research also shows that open and semi-open donations lead to better psychological benefits than anonymous donation — although I think it’s still an under researched area.

There are TONS of resources here: https://www.wearedonorconceived.com/resources/

[Anonymous]

He will be the donor until he decides to be the father. Then the woman is stuck with him.

[Anonymous]

https://danishapiro.com/books/inheritance/

"What makes us who we are? What combination of memory, history, biology, experience, and that ineffable thing called the soul defines us?

In the spring of 2016, through a genealogy website to which she had whimsically submitted her DNA for analysis, Dani Shapiro received the stunning news that her father was not her biological father. She woke up one morning and her entire history–the life she had lived–crumbled beneath her.

Inheritance is a book about secrets–secrets within families, kept out of shame or self-protectiveness; secrets we keep from one another in the name of love. It is the story of a woman’s urgent quest to unlock the story of her own identity, a story that has been scrupulously hidden from her for more than fifty years, years she had spent writing brilliantly, and compulsively, on themes of identity and family history. It is a book about the extraordinary moment we live in–a moment in which science and technology have outpaced not only medical ethics but also the capacities of the human heart to contend with the consequences of what we discover."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He will be the donor until he decides to be the father. Then the woman is stuck with him.

Nope. Not if they signed a donor agreement and artificially inseminated.

[Anonymous]

And with the current state of DNA tracing -- I can only imagine the future -- this is a lifetime commitment, and then some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a donor some years ago. I would advise against it. The cases where the dad has later been on the hook to support the kid are always when he had some form of existing relationship with the mom. I would definitely consult an attorney.

While her request is flattering, there are plenty of high quality donors out there for her to use.

I agree. I see no reason for someone to go with a friend for a donor. Especially one who obviously has no interest in forming any type of parental relationship. That is just going to be confusing for the kid.

Why would it be more confusing for the child than an anonymous donor? In fact, most of the research out there shows that some level of openness with the donor is better for the child’s psychology and self-identity than fully anonymous donation.

I am reading studies on that. I think the confusion could well be, if we were to connect as his biological father, but I was taking no responsibility for supporting him or assuming a father relationship, he/she could be confused and feel devalued.

I am a donor dad. Did not know the moms. The kids, when they reached 18, started reaching out to me. I have no responsibility to support them or be their father, but I do have a relationship with them (email and in person). Don’t know how to describe it, but I don’t think it’s confusing for them who I am.