In re K.M.H.
2007 Kan. LEXIS 644, 169 P.3d 1025, 285 Kan. 53 (2007)
Rule of Law:
K.S.A. 38-1114(f), which treats a sperm donor as not the birth father of a child conceived through artificial insemination unless agreed to in writing by the donor and the woman, is constitutional under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses when applied to a known sperm donor.
Facts:
- S.H., an unmarried female lawyer, wanted to become a parent through artificial insemination from a known donor.
- D.H., an unmarried male nonlawyer and friend of S.H., agreed to provide sperm for the insemination.
- S.H. and D.H. are Kansas residents, and their oral arrangements for the donation and their mutual expectations occurred in Kansas.
- S.H. underwent two inseminations with D.H.'s sperm in Missouri; for the second successful procedure, D.H. provided the sperm to S.H., who then delivered it to the Missouri physician.
- There was no formal written contract or agreement between S.H. and D.H. concerning the donation, the artificial insemination, or their expectations regarding D.H.'s parental rights or lack thereof.
- The twins were born on May 18, 2005, in Kansas and reside in Kansas.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 19, 2005 (the day after the twins' birth), S.H. filed a Child in Need of Care (CINC) petition in the district court (trial court/court of first instance) concerning the twins, seeking a determination that D.H. would have no parental rights.
- On May 31, 2005, D.H. filed an answer to the CINC petition and a separate paternity action acknowledging financial responsibility and claiming parental rights, including joint custody and visitation.
- The district court consolidated the CINC and paternity actions.
- S.H. filed a motion to dismiss the paternity action, invoking K.S.A. 38-1114(f).
- The district court ruled that Kansas law governed, that K.S.A. 38-1114(f) was constitutional and applicable, and that the CINC petition did not constitute a written agreement. The district court therefore granted S.H.'s motion, concluding as a matter of law that D.H. had no legal rights or responsibilities regarding K.M.H. and K.C.H.
- D.H. appealed the district court's decision to the Kansas Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does K.S.A. 38-1114(f), requiring a written agreement for a sperm donor to be considered a legal father, violate the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the federal and state Constitutions as applied to a known sperm donor who alleges an oral agreement to act as father?
Opinions:
Majority - Beier, J.
No, K.S.A. 38-1114(f), which requires a written agreement for a sperm donor to be considered a legal father, does not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses when applied to a known donor. The court first determined that Kansas law governed the dispute, as the parties were Kansas residents, their oral agreement was made in Kansas, and the children were born and reside in Kansas, despite the insemination occurring in Missouri. Addressing the Equal Protection challenge, the court applied intermediate scrutiny to the gender-based classification, finding that the statute substantially furthers legitimate legislative purposes. These include allowing women to become parents, protecting donors from unwanted claims, and enhancing predictability and clarity through a written agreement, thereby encouraging early resolution of parental status while bargaining power is balanced. For the Due Process challenge, the court held that D.H.'s biological link alone does not create a constitutionally protected fundamental right to parent in this context, especially when the statute provides a clear mechanism (a written agreement) to establish such rights, which D.H. failed to utilize. The court found D.H.'s argument that his sperm was not "provided to a licensed physician" directly was without merit, interpreting the statute to mean the sperm itself is provided to the physician, not necessarily by the donor. It also rejected the claim that S.H.'s CINC petition or the combined pleadings constituted a "written agreement," as they evidenced a dispute rather than an accord. Finally, the court held that K.S.A. 38-1114(f) is a specific statute that controls over the general paternity presumption in K.S.A. 38-1114(a)(4).
Dissenting - Caplinger, J.
Yes, K.S.A. 38-1114(f) is unconstitutional as applied to D.H. because it violates his fundamental right to parent his children without due process of law. While agreeing that statutes creating an "absolute bar" to donor paternity without an opt-out provision would violate due process, Justice Caplinger argued that the written opt-out clause in K.S.A. 38-1114(f) does not save its constitutionality in this specific case. She contended that fundamental rights must be actively waived, not passively lost due to inaction or ignorance of the law. The statute, by requiring a known donor to "opt in" to parenthood through a written agreement, imposes an unconstitutional burden on a fundamental right. Distinguishing Lehr v. Robertson, she argued that Lehr involved an absentee father in an adoption context, whereas D.H. is a biological father seeking to establish a relationship with his children where no other party asserts parental rights. She further stated that the state’s interest in predictability and clarity, while legitimate, cannot override fundamental due process rights, citing Stanley v. Illinois. The dissent also suggested that S.H.’s inconsistent pleadings (referring to D.H. as "father" and alleging his failure to provide support) should be considered as evidence of an agreement between the parties that D.H. would play an active role.
Dissenting - Hill, J.
Yes, K.S.A. 38-1114(f) is unconstitutional as applied to a known donor because it cuts off the children's heritage and is not in their best interests. Joining Justice Caplinger's dissent, Justice Hill raised the additional concern about the children's welfare, arguing that the statute's application strips them of half their heritage and disregards the meticulous safeguards typically afforded to parents and children in parentage proceedings. He emphasized that the trial court did not reach the "best interests of the children" because it found the statute barred such consideration, a position he views as incorrect. He supported the Ohio court's view that a statute extinguishing a father's efforts to assert parental rights, especially where he voluntarily assumes fiscal responsibility, runs contrary to due process.
Concurring - McFarland, C.J.
No, K.S.A. 38-1114(f) is constitutionally permissible and properly bars D.H. from asserting parental rights. Chief Justice McFarland highlighted that subsection (f) differs significantly from other provisions in K.S.A. 38-1114, which deal with rebuttable presumptions of paternity. Subsection (f) establishes no presumption, instead explicitly stating that a sperm donor is not the father unless there is a written agreement. This structure protects both parties: the woman can choose to be a single parent, and the donor is shielded from unwanted duties and obligations. A prospective donor who desires parental rights has the autonomy to insist on a written agreement before making a donation, thus controlling the creation of parental status. This legislative design is aimed at preventing unforeseen duties and obligations from being imposed without consent in the specific factual situation it addresses.
Analysis:
This case holds significant precedential value as a first impression at the national level regarding the constitutionality of artificial insemination statutes that include a written opt-out clause for known sperm donors. The decision reinforces the state's authority to regulate modern reproductive technologies and prioritizes legal clarity and predictability in parental status over genetic ties or alleged oral agreements. It establishes a clear, high burden on known sperm donors in Kansas to formalize any intent to parent through a written agreement before the donation occurs. While the court declined to find a constitutional violation in D.H.'s ignorance of the law or alleged trickery, it implicitly leaves a narrow opening for future challenges involving proven fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation in preventing a written agreement. The dissenting opinions highlight ongoing legal and societal debates regarding fundamental parental rights, the best interests of the child, and the tension between legal formality and equitable considerations in evolving family structures.
