Appeals court expands the rights of sperm donors who form close and committed relationships with their biological children.
Up until recently, men were not considered to have paternal rights related to any children that might be conceived as a result of a sperm donation. This interpretation of the law was designed to protect donors from being targeted for child support after an artificial insemination.
However, we also have in the law the concept of “psychological parenthood,” whereby any adult may establish or earn parental rights by accepting a child as their own and establishing a close and committed parental relationship with that child. It may actually be detrimental to the child’s best interests to deny them a relationship with such a person following a divorce or falling out between the child’s legal parent and this other adult. The law does provide for “psychological parents” to gain custody rights in such circumstances, and for the first time an appeals court ruling has applied this concept to sperm donors.
The case in question centers around actor Jason Patric and his 4-year-old son, Gus. Gus was conceived by Patric’s ex-girlfriend, Danielle Schreiber, via artificial insemination with Patric as the donor. Patric and Schreiber were not together at the time, but for the first 2 years of Gus’s life Patric was in close contact with his son. Schreiber reportedly even called Patric “Dada.”
Then, in 2012 Ms. Schreiber broke off all contact with Patric. Naturally, the actor was upset at the loss of the relationship with his son and decided not to let it go without a fight. Patric’s paternity and custody claim was denied in the first court case, based on the statute that restricts sperm donors’ parental rights.
However, upon appeal the court found that the statute had been applied too broadly. It should not apply to all sperm donors categorically to the extent that it could overrule the rights of “psychological parenthood.”
In overruling the trial court’s decision and awarding custody and visitation rights to Patric, the appeals court set an important precedent that will have far-reaching effects, not only for sperm donors but also for egg donors and even perhaps parties involved in open adoptions.
California legislators are already scrambling to find ways to make parental relationships clearer with efforts like the Modern Family Act. This act would set up a form that sperm donors would have to use to confirm that they want to voluntarily sign away their rights to any children that may result. It is unclear at this time whether such a form could still override the claims of “psychological parenthood.”
What is certain is that in any custody or paternity dispute, the best interests of the child must be considered first and foremost.
