ILNews

Court rules on artificial insemination issues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A divided Indiana Court of Appeals found that a man who donated sperm can be found to be the father of only one of the two children conceived by artificial insemination.

Mother J.F. and her friend, W.M., entered into a contract in which W.M. would donate his sperm to her to so that she could conceive a child. J.F. was in a long-term same-sex relationship at the time she conceived two children through insemination with sperm from W.M. There was only a contract drawn up when the first-born child, M.F., was conceived. The donor agreement said the father would not be responsible for the child in any way and would have no legal rights to the child.

The mother and her partner broke up when the children were older and mother sought financial assistance. This led to the prosecutor’s office in Fayette County filing a petition to establish paternity on the mother’s behalf. Mother claimed the contract was invalid and ran afoul of public policy.

The trial judge denied the petition to establish the paternity of the children on contract grounds.

In Paternity of M.F., et al.; J.F. v. W.M., No. 21A04-1002-JP-84, Judges Ezra Friedlander and Michael Barnes affirmed that decision in regards to the older child. There is very little caselaw addressing this issue, and they relied on Jhordan v. Mary K., 224 Cal. Rptr. 530 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986), which the Indiana Supreme Court cited in Straub v. B.M.T. by Todd, 645 N.E.2d 597 (Ind. 1994). One key issue upholding a contract between two parties is the involvement of a licensed physician in some way in the insemination. If the child is conceived through intercourse, but there is an agreement between the parties, the contract wouldn’t stand.

In the instant case, the manner in which M.F. was conceived is debated by the parties. The majority determined that the burden to prove the eldest child was conceived by artificial insemination is on the mother based on contract law. Since the judges couldn’t find any indication of the manner in which the mother was inseminated regarding the first pregnancy, she failed to prove that insemination happened in such a way to render the donor agreement unenforceable.

Judge Terry Crone dissented on this issue, arguing that the father must bear the burden as the one trying to avoid his support obligation. He also agreed with the majority that those specific circumstances in which assisted conception contracts might be enforceable must be extremely limited “in order to avoid creating a slippery slope whereby parents could evade their support obligations simply by signing an informal agreement hastily scribbled on a sheet of paper.”

The majority believed their ruling would prevent the possibility of spur-of-the moment, informal contracts absolving a father of any responsibility. First, a physician must be involved in the process of artificial insemination, and the agreement must show the parties’ careful consideration of the implications of such an agreement, wrote Judge Friedlander. The majority declined, however, to define the minimum requirements an agreement must have or endorse a particular contract.

The Court of Appeals judges all agreed that the trial court erred in denying the petition to establish paternity regarding the younger child. They found the contract drawn up before M.F. was born didn’t include C.F. The agreement was mostly specific to M.F., but did make two ambiguous references to “any child.” The judges agreed this language can’t be construed to include future children. They remanded with instructions to grant the mother’s petition to establish paternity with respect to C.F.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Pre-conceived notions
    Law, Medicine & Bio-ethics strike AGAIN !!
  • Saw this coming...
    As a lawyer, I saw this coming years ago. Moral of the story: If you don't want to support a child, don't have one!

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  2. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

  3. This outbreak illustrates the absurdity of the extreme positions taken by today's liberalism, specifically individualism and the modern cult of endless personal "freedom." Ebola reminds us that at some point the person's own "freedom" to do this and that comes into contact with the needs of the common good and "freedom" must be curtailed. This is not rocket science, except, today there is nonstop propaganda elevating individual preferences over the common good, so some pundits have a hard time fathoming the obvious necessity of quarantine in some situations....or even NATIONAL BORDERS...propagandists have also amazingly used this as another chance to accuse Western nations of "racism" which is preposterous and offensive. So one the one hand the idolatry of individualism has to stop and on the other hand facts people don't like that intersect with race-- remain facts nonetheless. People who respond to facts over propaganda do better in the long run. We call it Truth. Sometimes it seems hard to find.

  4. It would be hard not to feel the Kramers' anguish. But Catholic Charities, by definition, performed due diligence and held to the statutory standard of care. No good can come from punishing them for doing their duty. Should Indiana wish to change its laws regarding adoption agreements and or putative fathers, the place for that is the legislature and can only apply to future cases. We do not apply new laws to past actions, as the Kramers seem intent on doing, to no helpful end.

  5. I am saddened to hear about the loss of Zeff Weiss. He was an outstanding member of the Indianapolis legal community. My thoughts are with his family.

ADVERTISEMENT