In the case of In Re P.S.bat a woman her friend as a sperm donor so that she can have a child. They verbally agreed that he would be a donor, not a father, and he gave her her sperm, which she then used to artificially inseminate herself. The child was born in August 2014. After the birth of the child, both signed a paternity confirmation form so that his name appeared on the child`s birth certificate. The biological mother quickly tried to abolish this recognition of paternity. The lesson you need to learn here is that you can`t do things informally between yourself and a donor if you don`t want the donor to be a legal parent. In order to qualify as a donor in accordance with the law, the donation is done a lot through a licensed doctor. A variety of problems can arise if the sperm donor is “known” to the potential couple and the issues are dealt with informally. A donor can easily assert himself in parental responsibility if this role is not clearly defined by agreement and by law. The Fort Worth court ruled that the man was not a sperm donor because a “licensed physician” was not involved in the process. See In re P.S., 2016 Tex.
App. LEXIS 11657, at *6. It also meant that the man could be called a relative. See id. A Texas appeals court recently found that a known sperm donor is the legal father of the conceived child, granted him custody and held him responsible for maintaining the children`s upbringing. A. Read the article Donor or Dad?, in which assisted reproduction lawyer Rebecca Levin debunks common myths about using a known sperm donor under Pennsylvania law. One. Yes, after the birth of the child, the donor signed a “Confirmation of Paternity” form so that his or her name appears on the child`s birth certificate. Under Texas law, when a man signs this form, he and the biological mother agree that he is a legal father and assumes all rights and obligations that come with legal parenting, including custody and child support. Once a man signs such a form, it cannot be revoked against his will. There are measures that can mitigate or eliminate risks, regardless of your situation.
Under current law and jurisprudence, the use of a written agreement confirming donor status rather than parental status, as well as the use of a medical intermediary, eliminate the risk of a donor being considered a legal parent. The Case – In re P.S. – concerned a lesbian woman and her male boyfriend who decided to make a baby without a doctor. They used sterile cups and syringes to collect and deliver sperm, leading to the conception of a child. N° 02-16-00008-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 11657, at *1 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth [2nd dist.] October 27, 2016). The central issue in the Fort Worth court was whether the man was the father of the child.
The answer revolved around whether or not he was considered a “sperm donor” under the Texas Family Code. ==References=====External links===The Fort Worth case suggests that courts of appeal systematically use pre-ART agreements between the parties. If this trend continues, an ART lawyer could develop a known sperm donor agreement that could confirm that a donor is a mere donor and not a parent, even without a medical intermediary or a subsequent termination of the donor`s rights, if applicable. However, relying solely on an agreement would be quite risky given In re P.S.A. In Texas, there is a specific state law that requires insemination to take place in a doctor`s office so that a man is considered a donor rather than a father. In this case, insemination was carried out in the biological mother`s house and the sperm was made available to her directly. Because the parties did not comply with state law, the man was not legally classified as a “donor” within the meaning of Texas law. One. Yes, they had an oral agreement, but they did not have a written contract, so the agreement they had between them was unenforceable. This is mainly because they had not gone through a doctor to perform the insemination, as Texas law required if he was to be considered a donor. Insemination took place informally in the biological mother`s house. The father did not provide his sperm to a licensed physician, but directly to the biological mother.
Because of these two factors, the father was not considered a “donor” under state law. Use this known donor insemination agreement to describe the agreement between a biological mother and a sperm donor. This agreement allows the parties to define all aspects of the relationship. Read more If the parties had had artificial insemination performed by a doctor`s office, the father would have been a donor under the law and would not have been entitled to parental rights. This case shows how important it is to understand the legal issues related to known sperm donors before attempting to become pregnant with a known donor. Rebecca Levin, an assisted reproduction lawyer, investigates the Re P.S. case to explain what went wrong. In the In re Sullivan case, the Houston Court of Appeals ruled in a parentage case for a donor who had signed a detailed legal agreement prior to fertilization and conception that gave him a custodial conservatory with each child resulting from the assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedure. See 157 p.w.3d at 912-913, 919.
The San Antonio Court of Appeals found otherwise that a donor lacked prestige; However, in that case, there was only one oral agreement at issue between the parties on parental rights before the ART. See In re H.C.S., 219 s.W.3d, pp. 34, 36. As with many ART-related legal issues, the law typically lags behind the technology and behaviour of people who make babies with ART by about a quarter of a century. We may eventually see cases where it is determined that a donor is a mere donor and not a relative – even without a doctor`s agent or subsequent termination of rights – based on a well-designed agreement on sperm donors known by a competent ART lawyer. One possible reading of this case is that a sperm donor is a parent unless a licensed physician is used. However, it is also possible to interpret this case as the most recent in a series of three cases in which a Texas court of appeals deferred the consent of the parties to the time of conception of the child to establish the authority of a sperm donor known to assert parental rights. See In re H.C.S., 219 pp.w.3d 33, 35-36 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 2006, no pet.); In re Sullivan, 157 pp.w.3d 911, 919 (Tex.App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, orig. proceeding).
Both Cases in Texas suggest that the consent of the parties at the time of donation – before conception – guides the courts in determining parental rights. Texans who want to use well-known sperm donors to have their own babies now need to be even more careful. Recently, a Fort Worth appeals court found that a man who gave his sperm to his lesbian girlfriend was the child`s legal father because a medical intermediary was not used. The rule is that sperm donors are not parents. See Texas Family Code § 160.702. If the man was a “sperm donor,” then he was not a relative. However, “sperm donor” is narrowly defined as “a person who . Sperm to a licensed physician to be used for assisted reproduction. “See Id.
in § 160.102(6) (emphasis added). A. Contact a competent and experienced licensed assisted reproduction attorney in the state that governs the child`s legal ancestry BEFORE you begin the process. .