Jhordan C. v. MARY K.
1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 1405, 179 Cal. App. 3d 386, 224 Cal. Rptr. 530 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California Civil Code § 7005(b), a man who donates semen for artificial insemination is only shielded from being treated as the natural father if the semen is provided to a licensed physician; otherwise, he can be declared the legal father.
Facts:
- In late 1978, Mary K. decided to conceive a child through artificial insemination and raise it with her close friend, Victoria T.
- Mary K. interviewed several potential donors and selected Jhordan C., with whom she had conflicting verbal understandings about his future involvement with the child.
- Beginning in January 1979, Jhordan C. provided his semen directly to Mary K. at her home on multiple occasions, and she performed the inseminations herself without any physician involvement.
- During the pregnancy, Jhordan C. maintained contact with Mary K., visited her, and prepared for the child's arrival by collecting baby items and starting a trust fund.
- After the child, Devin, was born on March 30, 1980, Jhordan C. was listed as the father on the birth certificate.
- Jhordan C. visited Devin the day after his birth and continued to have monthly visits until August 1980, when Mary K. terminated them.
- Mary K. asked Jhordan C. to sign a contract stating he would not seek to be Devin's father, but he refused.
Procedural Posture:
- In December 1980, Jhordan C. filed an action in California trial court against Mary K. to establish his paternity and visitation rights.
- In a separate action, the County of Sonoma obtained a stipulated judgment in June 1982 ordering Jhordan C. to pay child support for Devin.
- In November 1982, the trial court in the paternity action granted Jhordan C. weekly visitation with Devin.
- In August 1983, Victoria T. successfully moved to be joined as a party to the paternity action, seeking joint legal custody and visitation.
- After trial, the court issued a judgment declaring Jhordan C. to be Devin's legal father and granted him visitation rights, while denying Victoria T. de facto parent status.
- Mary K. and Victoria T. (appellants) appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, challenging the paternity declaration and the denial of de facto parent status for Victoria T., with Jhordan C. as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a man who donates semen for artificial insemination be declared the legal father of the resulting child if the semen was not provided to a licensed physician as required by California Civil Code § 7005(b) to extinguish paternity?
Opinions:
Majority - King, J.
Yes. A man who donates semen for artificial insemination can be declared the legal father of the resulting child if the parties fail to comply with the statutory requirement that the semen be provided to a licensed physician. The court reasoned that the plain language of Civil Code § 7005(b) explicitly limits the shield from paternity to situations where a licensed physician is involved. The legislative history of the Uniform Parentage Act, from which the statute is derived, confirms this was a conscious choice to ensure health screening and to create a formal, documented structure for the donor-recipient relationship to avoid misunderstandings. The statute does not violate equal protection because it treats married and unmarried women equally, and the state has a rational basis for providing different paternity presumptions within a marriage. Furthermore, the statute does not infringe on the right to procreative choice or family autonomy, as it does not prohibit private insemination but merely sets a specific procedure to avoid the legal consequences of paternity. Here, the parties' conduct, including Jhordan's continued contact and involvement, further supported the conclusion that he was not excluded from the child's life.
Analysis:
This case establishes a bright-line rule requiring strict compliance with the statutory formalities for artificial insemination to terminate a sperm donor's parental rights and responsibilities. The decision serves as a significant caution against informal, non-medical artificial insemination arrangements, clarifying that without physician involvement, the donor's legal status remains that of a potential father. It underscores the judiciary's reluctance to extend statutory protections beyond their explicit terms, particularly in the evolving area of reproductive technology and non-traditional family formation. This precedent solidifies the importance of legal counsel and adherence to statutory procedures for all parties involved in third-party reproduction to ensure their intentions are legally protected.
