Monica K. Lindstrom Mediations
Empower | Dignity | Respect
This is the exact question that the California legislature is dealing with and the topic I spoke with Shep Smith on Studio B today about. SB115 would give a man, who contributed his sperm in assisted reproductive methods, the opportunity to argue for and obtain parental rights. It was introduced by Democratic state Sen. Jerry Hill.
I can understand the need for a change in the law, or I should say, a clarification in the law. IVF and assisted reproductive measures are becoming more popular and available to a larger group of the population. In fact, some employers will even contribute financially to the pursuit. These procedures are used by not only married couples but also couples who are not married and are in a relationship. Take Jason Patric and Danielle Schreiber, they were dating before, during and after, they conceived a child by assisted reproductive methods. They broke up, Patric wants parental rights over the child and Schreiber said no. The judge ruled in the mother’s favor. This celebrity story brought awareness to SB115 and Patric even spoke to the legislature about it.
SB115 does scare some groups and understandably so. Take the scenario where a woman, or a lesbian couple, contracts with an anonymous sperm bank to conceive a child. The child is born and all is well for 5 years. Then, out of the blue, the “anonymous” donor shows up at their doorstop wanting a relationship with the child or requesting parental rights. That would be an unfortunate situation that, at the time of conception, was not even considered. SB115, as of right now, would allow that donor to argue for parental rights. As such, it may be necessary to carve out an exception for situations involving the anonymous sperm banks.
There is also the situation where the mother(s) knew the sperm donor and had a contract that the donor would not be part of the child’s life or interfere in any way. Even though a contract is involved, I find it likely that a judge could find the donor in breach of contract but that it would be in humanity’s best interest, or the child’s best interest, to allow the father parental rights. In essence, the breach of contract is no big deal.
According to sB115, the donor would have to show that he was in fact the donor (which could be difficult in the sperm bank situation) and that he had an ongoing relationship with the child. However, there is no time limit here. This could come at age 1 or at age 10. Then comes the question, what if the donor wants to start that relationship but the mother says no? Also, what exactly is enough for an ongoing relationship? What about financial assistance?
As you can see, there are some really good questions here and a significant need to resolve the questions so there are bright line rules in place.