Alternative Reproductive Technologies and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People

1
Alternative Reproductive Technologies and
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People
The cases in this outline are examples of those
resolving issues raised by use of ART by LGBT
people the list is not comprehensive. Please be
sure to consult a lawyer in your state for up to
date information about statutes and cases.

• Nancy D. Polikoff, Professor of Law,
• American University Washington College of Law,
• Author, Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage
• Valuing All Families under the Law
• (forthcoming, Beacon Press, February 2008)

2
I. ACCESS TO SERVICES

• A. Discrimination on the basis of sexual
  orientation and/or marital status

• North Coast Womens Care Medical Group v.
  Superior Court/Benitez, 137 Cal. App. 4th 781 40
  Cal. Rptr. 3d 636 (2006) (not citable, on appeal
  to California Supreme Court) (lesbian sued
  medical group and two of its employee physicians,
  alleging that their refusal to perform
  intrauterine insemination (IUI) on her violated
  the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Defendants asserted
  their federal and state constitutional right to
  the free exercise of religion as an affirmative
  defense. In California, sexual orientation
  discrimination is illegal however, the doctors
  claim they denied Benitez treatment not because
  she is a lesbian, but because she is unmarried.)

3

• Andrea D. Gurmankin et al, Screening Practices
  and Beliefs of Assisted Reproductive Technology
  Programs, 83 Fertility Sterility 61 (2005) (20
  of programs unlikely to accept woman without
  partner 53 unlikely to accept man without
  partner. 48 unlikely to accept gay couple
  seeking surrogacy arrangements 17 unlikely to
  accept lesbian couples seeking donor
  insemination)

4
B. Insurance coverage

• 1. Fourteen states have laws dealing with
  insurance coverage for infertility. Most of
  these laws require that the procedure be medical
  necessary and/or that IVF be with the patients
  spouses sperm.

See http//www.asrm.org/Patients/insur.html
5
2. Surrogacy and insurance

• Mid-South Insurance Co. v. Doe, 274 F.Supp.2d 757
  (D.S.C. 2003) (Under South Carolina law, child
  born to surrogate mother was not natural child of
  her husband, and thus not a covered dependent
  under health policy naming husband as primary
  insured medical services provided to surrogate
  mother for complications of pregnancy were
  covered by policy health insurer was not liable
  for bad faith for failure to pay surrogate
  mother's medical bills child was dependent of
  insured biological parents under their health
  coverage, even though she was born to surrogate
  mother and biological parents' adoption
  provisions of policy did not provide retroactive
  coverage after initial 31-day period for period
  prior to adoption)

6
3. Further reading

• Ellen Waldman, Cultural Priorities Revealed The
  Development and Regulation of Assisted
  Reproduction in the United States and Israel, 16
  Health Matrix 65 (2006). From p. 89 For
  lesbians and single women who could become
  pregnant through sexual intercourse but are
  seeking physician assistance in conceiving via
  intrauterine insemination, establishing the
  condition of infertility may be impossible. A
  similar catch-22 emerges in states conditioning
  insurance benefits on a showing that the
  infertility treatment is medically necessary.
  Again, lesbians and single women may be medically
  capable of conception, but require artificial
  insemination with donor sperm to satisfy a
  personal rather than medical need.

7

• Catherine Delair, Ethical, Moral, Economic and
  Legal Barriers to Assisted Reproductive
  Technologies Employed by Gay Men and Lesbian
  Women, 4 DePaul J. Health Care L. 147 (2000).
  From p. 174-6 Absent sweeping legislative
  reform, there is little that gays and lesbians
  can do regarding the cost of assisted
  reproductive technologies. Gays and lesbians
  will receive financial assistance for services
  related to assisted reproductive technology only
  if four conditions are met. First, state or
  federal governments must mandate that all
  insurance companies provide for treatments
  related to assisted reproductive technology.
  Second, statutes must exclude the language of
  medically necessary as well as exclude or
  broaden the definition of infertility. Third,
  statues must exclude language that suggests or
  specifies that only married couples will receive
  benefits. Finally, legislation must mandate same
  sex partnership health benefits.

8

• Elizabeth Weil, Breeder Reaction, Mother Jones,
  July/August 2006, 32. This article examines
  reproductive rights in the context of assisted
  reproductive technologies and specifically
  focuses on North Coast Womens Care Medical Group
  v. Superior Court/Benitez. The article contains
  a few observations about insurance (1) Because
  few insurance companies pick up the tab, patients
  themselves must decide where to spend their money
  and make this choice based on the success rates
  of different clinics (2) the legal regulation of
  ART is not aided by the fact that so much of the
  fertility industry takes place outside the
  centrifugal force of insurance (3) Should
  infertility even be viewed as a medial problem?
  Defining ART as a medical treatment is a bit
  forced, because if you use the classic situation
  of a fertile woman with an infertile male spouse,
  she never had a fertility problem to begin withA
  more logical line of reasoning might be to view
  her as having a social, not a medical dilemma.
  Those in favor of greater access to ART posit
  infertility as a disease of a couple, but even
  this doesnt guarantee insurance coverage of ART
  services (4) were ART covered by insurance,
  insurers could pressure doctors into lowering the
  multiple birth rate by limiting multiple embryo
  transfers, and everyone would save money even
  insurers because ART is cheap compared to the
  costs associated with quad-, quin-, or sextuplet
  births.

9
C. Gay men affected by the following
restrictions on surrogacy
1. Statutes a. Authorized only for married
couples

• Florida FLA. STAT. 742.11-15 (2002) FLA.
  STAT. 63.212 (2002)
• Nevada NEV. REV. STAT. ANN. 126.045 (2001)
• New Hampshire R.S.A. NH 168-B1 (2002)
• Tennessee TENN. CODE ANN. 36-1-102(48)(A)
  (2002)

10

• Texas court must validate surrogacy contract,
  intended parents must be married to each other
  TEX. FAM. CODE 160.754 TEX. FAM. CODE
  160.762
• Utah Utah Code Ann. 78-45g-801(3) The
  intended parents shall be married, and both
  spouses must be parties to the gestational
  agreement.
• Virginia approves uncompensated surrogacy only
  when intended parents are a man and a woman,
  married to each other. VA. CODE ANN. 20-156
  (2002)

11
b. Prohibited if there is financial
compensation other than medical and legal
expenses (i.e. legal if only money exchanged
relates to expenses incurred)

• New Mexico see N.M. STAT. ANN. 32A-5-34
  (2003)
• Washington see RCW 26.210.260 (2002) RCW
  26.26.101 (2002)

c. Prohibited if there is money involved in any
manner (i.e. altruistic surrogacy permitted)

• Kentucky 199.590(4)

• Louisiana statute provides traditional
  surrogacy is against public policy and all
  traditional surrogacy agreements are null, but
  does not address gestational surrogacy. LA. R. S.
  92713 (2002)
• Nebraska R.R.S. NEB. 25-21,200 (2002)

12

• d. Prohibited regardless
• Arizona -- Ariz. Rev. Stat. 25-218 (But in Soos
  v. Superior Ct., 182 Ariz. 470 (Ct. App. 1994),
  the court held that statute that allowed
  biological father to prove paternity but that
  established the surrogate as the legal mother and
  offered no chance for biological mother to prove
  maternity violate equal protection clauses of
  both U.S. and Arizona constitutions)
• DC D.C. CODE 16-401, 402 (2002)
• Indiana BURNS IND. CODE ANN. 31-20-1-1 (2002)
• Michigan MCLS 722.851-861 (2002)
• New York NY Dom Rel 122 (2001)
• North Dakota N.D. CENT. CODE 14-18-05 (2002)

13

• e. Miscellaneous statutes
• Illinois permits gestational surrogacy genetic
  parents are parents. 750 ILL. COMP. STAT. 45/6
  (2002)
• Maryland -- no laws directly addressing
  surrogacy, but related family laws may make
  compensated agreements unenforceable. MD. CODE
  ANN., FAM. LAW 5-327 (2002) MD. CODE ANN.,
  CRIM. LAW 3-603 (2002)
• Wisconsin law states that surrogate mother is
  to be listed on birth certificate and information
  about father omitted. WIS. STAT. 69.14(h)
  (2001)

14
2. No statutes, but case law or other authority

• Delaware at least one court has held surrogacy
  contracts against public policy. Hawkins v. Frye
  (a.k.a. Frank v. Hall), 1988 Del. Fam. Ct. LEXIS
  31 (Fam. Ct. Sussex County 1988).
• Kansas -- two Atty. Gen. opinions indicate that
  surrogacy is against public policy and surrogacy
  agreements are thus void.
• New Jersey A.H.W. v. G.H.B., 772 A.2d 948 (N.J.
  Super. 2000) (denying pre-birth parentage order
  sought by intended, genetic parents for child
  carried by gestational surrogate. Surrogate
  cannot relinquish child until seventy-hours after
  birth, and parents must sign birth certificate
  within five days) In Re Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227
  (N.J. 1988) (holding traditional surrogacy
  against public policy and deeming all traditional
  surrogacy contracts void awarding custody to
  intended mother wife of genetic and intended
  father based on a best-interest standard
  awarding visitation to traditional surrogate).

15

• Ohio OH courts have dealt with surrogacy on
  numerous occasions, but there is no statute or
  decision explicitly stating that surrogacy
  contracts are enforceable. Court approved
  prebirth parentage order for genetic parents
  using gestational surrogate. Belsito v. Clark, 67
  Ohio Misc. 54, 644 N.E.2d (1994).

3. Law that might be helpful for gay men using
surrogacy

• Arkansas law presumes child is child of
  intended parents --Ark. Code. Ann. 9-10-201
  (2002).
• California courts have upheld surrogacy contracts

16

• Connecticut case history (Vogel v. McBride) of
  a court ordering two men listed on birth
  certificate of child born with assistance of
  surrogate.
• Massachusetts Culliton v. Beth Israel Deaconess
  Medical Center, 756 N.E.2d 1133 (Mass. 2001)
  (allowing prebirth parentage orders stemming from
  a gestational surrogacy agreement involving
  heterosexual intended parents. Court set forth
  criteria for judging prebirth parentage orders in
  other gestational surrogacy cases that the
  intended parents are the sole genetic sources,
  the gestational carrier agrees with the orders
  sought, no one, including the hospital, has
  contested the complaint or petition, and the
  intended parents agree that they have waived any
  contradictory provisions in the contract.
• In Alabama, Iowa and Kentucky, surrogacy is not
  baby selling
• Oregon In the Matter of the Adoption of Baby A
  and Baby B, 877 P.2d 107 (Or. Ct. App. 1994)
  (Petition to adopt twins pursuant to traditional
  surrogacy agreement was denied by the Circuit
  Court, and adoptive and birth parents appealed.
  The Court of Appeals held that petition should
  have been granted).

17
4. No legal authority concerning surrogacy

• Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine,
  Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North
  Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
  South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming

18
II. DETERMINING PARENTAGE
A. Surrogacy

• In re Roberto d.B., 923 A.2d 115 (Md. 2007) (When
  intended and genetic father joined with
  gestational surrogate seeking an accurate birth
  certificate listing the father as the sole
  parent, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that,
  under state ERA, a state paternity statute
  allowing man to disprove paternity must permit
  gestational surrogate to disprove maternity. The
  court further held that Maryland law facilitates
  the issuance of a birth certificate with only
  fathers name.)

19

• Second-parent adoption

• 1. Second-parent adoption established by
  statute and/or state appeals court rulings
• California Cal. Fam. Code 9000(f) (2004) for
  registered domestic partners otherwise, Sharon
  S. v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 73 P.3d
  554 (Ca. 2003)
• Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. 19-5-203(1),
  19-5-210(1.5), 19-5-211 (1.5)
• Connecticut Conn. Gen. Stat. 45a-724(3)
  (2004)
• Vermont Vt. Stat. Ann tit. 15A 1-102(b)
  (2004) In re B.L.V.B., 628 A.2d 1271 (Vt. 1993)
• D.C. In re M.M.D. v. B.H.M., 662 A.2d 837 (D.C.
  1995)

20

• Illinois In re Petition of K.M. D.M., 653
  N.E.2d 888 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995)
• Indiana In re Adoption of K.S.P., 804 N.E.2d
  1253 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)
• Massachusetts In re Adoption of Tammy, 619
  N.E.2d 315 (Mass. 2003)
• New Jersey In re The Adoption of Two Children
  by H.N.R., 666 A.2d 535 (N.J. Super 1995)
• New York In re Jacob, In re Dana, 660 N.E.2d
  397 (N.Y. 1995)
• Pennsylvania In re Adoption of R.B.F. R.C.F.,
  803 A.2d 1195 (Pa. 2002)

21
2. Second-parent adoption established by state
trial court rulings

• Alabama
• Alaska
• Delaware
• Hawaii
• Iowa
• Louisiana
• Maryland
• Michigan

• Minnesota
• Nevada
• New Mexico
• Oregon
• Rhode Island
• Texas
• Washington

22
3. States where appellate court rulings have
held state adoption law does NOT permit
second-parent adoption

• Nebraska In re Adoption of Luke, 640 N.W.2d 374
  (Neb. 2002) (Biological mother and her partner
  appealed an order of the County Court denying
  adoption petition jointly filed by mother and
  partner, in which partner sought to adopt
  mother's child. The Supreme Court held that child
  was not eligible for adoption by partner under
  adoption statutes because mother had not
  relinquished parental rights).
• Ohio In re Adoption of Doe, 719 N.E.2d 1071
  (Ohio Ct. App 1998) (Partner of child's
  biological mother petitioned to adopt child, and
  sought declaratory relief continuing biological
  mother's parental rights. Court held that
  adoption of child by adult who was not child's
  stepparent would terminate parental rights of
  biological parent by operation of law).
• Wisconsin Interest of Angela Lace M., 516
  N.W.2d 678 (Wis. 1994) (Mother of minor and
  mother's female cohabitant appealed order denying
  cohabitant's petition to adopt minor. Court held
  that (1) proposed adoption did not satisfy
  essential requirements of adoption statute and
  was prohibited by statute, even though trial
  court found that adoption was in best interests
  of child (2) adoption statute did not violate
  minor's rights to due process and equal
  protection by prohibiting adoption and (3)
  adoption statute did not violate cohabitant's
  right to equal protection by prohibiting
  adoption).

23
B. Donor insemination Presumptions applicable
to lesbian partner of biological mother

• 1. Marital presumption for same-sex couples
  (Massachusetts and states with analogous legal
  status CA, CT, OR, NH, NJ, VT)
• In re Parentage of Robinson, 890 A.2d 1036 (N.J.
  Super. 2005) (under the Artificial Insemination
  statute, same-sex partner was presumed to be the
  parent of child).
• Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 912 A.2d 951
  (Vt. 2006) (Biological mother of child filed
  petition to dissolve civil union with her
  same-sex partner, in which she requested that she
  be awarded custodial rights over child and that
  partner be awarded parent-child contact. Court
  held, among other things, that partner was a
  parent within meaning of Parentage Proceedings
  Act).
• 2. Even if there a marital presumption applies
  for same-sex couples, second-parent adoption
  still recommended to assure Full Faith and
  Credit and recognition under federal law in light
  of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

24
3. Marital presumption where one spouse is
transgender likely to turn on legality of
marriage which may turn on states definition of
man and woman

• In re Marriage of Simmons, 825 N.E.2d 303 (Ill.
  App. 2005) (Transsexual male, who was born
  female, and wife sought marriage dissolution and
  custody of minor child. Court held that
  transsexual male's marriage to wife was invalid
  as a same-sex marriage, and did not become valid
  when he had his internal female organs removed
  Parentage Act, under which husbands of
  artificially inseminated wives were treated as
  the natural fathers of any children thereby
  conceived, did not include transsexual male
  Parentage Act, under which a child born from
  artificial insemination to two married parents
  retained his right to parentage with both parents
  even if the marriage was subsequently held
  invalid, did not include transsexual male
  transsexual male, who was born female, could not
  be declared the de facto parent of minor child
  based upon his long, loving and close
  relationship with the minor child and that minor
  child was not a third-party beneficiary to
  artificial insemination agreement between and
  wife and transsexual male.

25

• Kantaras v. Kantaras, 884 So. 2d 155 (Fla. App.
  2004) (law does not provide for or allow
  postoperative female-to-male transsexual person
  to marry a female marriage between wife and her
  husband, who was a postoperative female-to-male
  transsexual person, was void and any marriage
  that is not between persons of the opposite sex,
  as determined by their biological sex at birth,
  will be invalidated).

26
4. When no marital presumption, consider Uniform
Parentage Act (including 2002 update) and other
sperm donor statutes

• 5. Agreement plus conduct parenthood
• Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 117 P.3d 660 (Cal.
  2005) (action to establish that former lesbian
  partner was obliged to pay child support to
  mother, who was receiving public assistance, for
  children who were conceived intentionally while
  mother and partner were in a relationship. Court
  applied holding out provision of UPA and held
  that under the UPA, a child may have two parents,
  both of whom are women).
• K.M. v. E.G., 117 P.3d 673 (Cal. 2005) (Woman,
  who had donated her eggs so that her former
  lesbian partner, with whom she was registered a
  domestic partnership, could bear a child through
  in vitro fertilization, filed petition to
  establish parental relationship with partner's
  twin children after the relationship ended.
  Court held that both lesbian partners were
  parents of these children, and that statute
  providing that law treats sperm donor as if he
  was not natural father of child so conceived did
  not apply to this situation because she did not
  intend simply to donate her eggs, but rather
  designed her donation so that her partner could
  give birth to a child that would be raised in
  their joint home).

27

• Kristine H. v. Lisa R., 117 P.3d 690 (Cal. 2005)
  (The biological mother of a child filed a motion
  against her former lesbian partner to set aside a
  stipulated judgment declaring that both the
  mother and her partner were the joint legal
  parents of the child. Court held that the
  biological mother was estopped from attacking the
  validity of the judgment to which she had
  stipulated).

28
6. No parenthood for birth mothers partner
based on agreement alone

• State ex rel. D.R.M., 34 P. 3d 887 (Wash. App.
  2001) (Petition to establish parentage and to
  impose child support obligation on former
  same-sex partner of child's mother. Court held
  former partner was not child's parent under
  Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) no law required
  child to have more than one legal parent child
  support statute did not impose child support
  obligation on mother's former partner in absence
  of a parent-child relationship).

29

• T.F. v. B.L., 813 N.E.2d 1244 (Mass. 2004)
  (Biological mother of child filed complaint
  seeking child support from her former domestic
  partner. Court held that evidence supported
  conclusion that implied contract existed between
  mother and her former domestic partner that they
  would parent child born to biological mother but
  implied contract was unenforceable any implied
  promise that former domestic partner made to
  mother with respect to child support was
  inextricably linked to former domestic partner's
  unenforceable promise to co-parent child, and
  thus any promise as to child support was
  similarly unenforceable court would not invoke
  its equitable powers to create a duty requiring
  former domestic partner to pay child support).

30
7. De facto parent, psychological parent, and
other designations What do they mean?

• In re Parentage of L.B., 122 P.3d 161 (Wash.
  2006) (Woman brought action against biological
  mother of minor, seeking to establish her
  co-parentage of minor, who was conceived by donor
  insemination during the woman's 12-year intimate
  relationship with mother. Court held that common
  law claim of de facto parentage existed such that
  woman had standing to petition for rights and
  responsibilities of shared parentage and
  nonbiological mother is de facto parent with
  legal parity. To establish standing as a de
  facto parent with rights and obligations in
  parity with those of a biological or adoptive
  parent, the prospective parent must prove (1) the
  natural or legal parent consented to and fostered
  the parent-like relationship, (2) the prospective
  parent and the child lived together in the same
  household, (3) the prospective parent assumed
  obligations of parenthood without expectation of
  financial compensation, and (4) the prospective
  parent had been in a parental role for a length
  of time sufficient to have established with the
  child a bonded, dependent relationship parental
  in nature).

31

• Clifford K. and Tina B. v. Paul S., 619 S.E.2d
  138 (W. Va. 2005) (Partner of deceased mother
  filed petition, along with biological father,
  seeking custody of child. The Family Court
  awarded primary custody to partner, and maternal
  grandfather appealed. Court held that partner
  was not the legal parent of mother's child such
  that she had standing as a legal parent to seek
  custody of child but that partner had standing to
  intervene in custody proceeding under
  exceptional cases' provision, as partner was
  child's psychological parent and unusual and
  extraordinary circumstances existed and best
  interest of child was served by awarding partner
  permanent custody).

32
C. Donor Insemination The status of a known
donor
1. Statutes specify married women Donor is not
a father ( denotes that statute applies only if
physician involved in insemination).

• Alabama -- Ala. Code 1975 26-17-21
• Alaska AS 25.20.045
• Arizona A.R.S. 25-501(B) Child born as a
  result of AI is entitled to support from mother
  and mothers spouse if spouse is either the
  biological father or agreed in writing to the
  insemination before another insemination
  occurred.
• California CAL. FAM. CODE 7613 (2003)
• Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. 19-4-106
• Connecticut Conn. Gen. Stat. 45A-774
• Delaware 13 Del.C. 8-705
• Georgia GA. CODE 19-7-21

33

• Idaho IDAHO CODE ANN. 39-5405
• Illinois 750 ILCS 40/2 750 ILCS 40/3
• Kansas -- K.S.A. 23-128, 23-129
• Maryland MD CODE, ESTATES AND TRUSTS, 1-206
• Massachusetts M.G.L.A. 46 4B
• Minnesota M.S.A. 257.56
• Missouri V.A.M.S. 210.824
• Montana MCA 40-6-106
• New Jersey N.J. STAT. ANN. 917-44
• New York McKinney's DRL 73
• New Mexico N.M. STAT. ANN. 40-11-6 (2003)
• Nevada N.R.S. 126.061

34

• North Carolina N.C.G.S.A. 49A-1
• North Dakota NDCC, 14-20-63
• Ohio OHIO REV. CODE ANN. 3111.95
• Oklahoma 10 Okl. St. Ann. 551 et seq.
• Oregon OR. REV. STAT. 109.243
• Tennessee T. C. A. 68-3-306
• Virginia VA. CODE ANN. 20-158
• Wisconsin WIS. STAT. 891.40
• Wyoming W.S.1977 14-2-905

35

• Statute not limited to married women donor not a
  father ( denotes that statute applies only if
  physician involved in insemination).

• Arkansas ARK. CODE ANN. 9-10-201, 9-10-202
  (statute says if mother unmarried the child is
  hers for all legal purposes no explicit
  reference to donor)
• Florida West's F.S.A. 742.14
• New Hampshire N.H. Rev. Stat. 5-C30 When
  it is known that the birth of a child is the
  result of artificial insemination of sperm from a
  person who is not the mother's husband, the male
  parentage shall be indicated on the birth record
  as follows If the mother is married, the
  husband's name shall be listed as the father of
  the child. If the mother is unwed, an affidavit
  of paternity shall be executed when the donor of
  the sperm can be identified and is willing to be
  identified on the birth record or, otherwise, the
  phrase "not stated" shall be entered for the
  father's name.

36

• Texas TEX. FAM. CODE 160.702
• Utah UTAH CODE ANN. 78-45G-702
• Washington WASH. REV. CODE 26.26.705

37
3. Status of known donor depends upon the
intent of the parties ( denotes that statute
applies only if physician involved in
insemination).

• Delaware 13 Del.C. 8-702, 8-703 Donor is not
  a father unless donor intends to be a father.
• Kansas K.S.A. 38-1114(f) The donor of semen
  provided to a licensed physician for use in
  artificial insemination of a woman other than the
  donor's wife is treated in law as if he were not
  the birth father of a child thereby conceived,
  unless agreed to in writing by the donor and the
  woman. (Court interpretation pending in Kansas
  Supreme Court).
• New Jersey N.J. STAT. ANN. 917-44
  (agreement must be in writing)
• New Hampshire N.H. Rev. Stat. 168-B11, N.H.
  Rev. Stat. 168-B12 (must be in writing)
• New Mexico N.M. STAT. ANN. 40-11-6 (2003)
  (must be in writing)
• North Dakota N.D. CENT. CODE 14-20-60,
  14-20-61, 14-20-62 (must be in writing)
• Texas TEX. FAM. CODE 160.7031 If an
  unmarried man, with the intent to be the father
  of a resulting child, provides sperm to a
  licensed physician and consents to the use of
  that sperm for assisted reproduction by an
  unmarried woman, he is the father of a resulting
  child (must be in writing).
• Wyoming W.S.1977 14-2-902 et seq. (must be in
  writing)

38
4. Some notable cases on donor status

• Known donor is a father
• Thomas S. v. Robin Y., 618 N.Y.S.2d 356 (App.
  Div. 1994) (Donor sought order of filiation and
  visitation with child raised by her mother and
  lesbian partner. Court held that father, who was
  known to his child as her father, and who had
  spent time with her, was entitled to order of
  filiation, even though child did not consider him
  a parent).
• Known donor has child support obligations
• Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob, 923 A.2d 473 (Pa. Super.
  2007) (Mother's former same-sex partner filed
  action against mother and sperm donor, seeking
  full legal and physical custody of mother's two
  biological children and two adopted children.
  Mother filed complaint against former partner for
  child support for mother's biological children.
  Court held that sperm donor was indispensable
  party in support action father was equitably
  estopped from avoiding support obligation given
  that former partner could not avoid support
  obligation, and father's support obligation was
  statutorily imposed).

39

• Known donor has visitation
• LaChapelle v. Mitten, 607 N.W.2d 151 (Minn. 2000)
  (Sperm donor commenced paternity proceedings
  after child's mother and her lesbian partner
  severed his visitation with the child, and,
  following termination of the lesbian
  relationship, the parties commenced various
  proceedings to determine custody and visitation
  rights. Court held that partner had standing to
  seek custody record supported finding that joint
  legal custody by mother and partner would be in
  child's best interests mother functionally
  abandoned her right to sole legal custody by
  agreeing share legal custody child could
  maintain a relationship with her mother and her
  mother's former lesbian partner as her emotional
  parent, and with a sperm donor as her biological
  father any rights the donor had under the
  agreement were not those of a joint legal
  custodian).

Known donor is not a father Leckie v.
Voorhies, 875 P.2d 521 (Ore. App. 1994) (Child
had some relationship with donor court upheld
his written agreement waiving parental rights),