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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT