When a child is born, and parents are filling out the birth certificate, there are normally two lines; one for the mother and one for the father. But, it’s 2014 and family dynamics are not necessarily as black and white as two lines suggest. With so many different possible scenarios for what constitutes a family, a change in Canadian law now provides for multiple parents to be recognized as the legal parents of a child.

The couple always wanted the donor to be more than just a donor, and that’s exactly what they now have. The three spent time before the child was conceived writing up the parenting contract and making sure all three knew the roles they would play in their child’s life.

“Both of us, from the beginning, wanted to have a father that would actually be a participant,” said Wiley.

“I know a lot of other lesbian couples don’t want that. They want an anonymous donor. But both of us liked the idea of somebody who could actually be involved, and who could be a father figure to our children.”

Kangro, an old friend of Richards, seemed like the obvious choice.

“When Anna and Danielle approached me, I think instantly I thought I was going to say yes, even though I had to debate a lot of things in my head first,” said Kangro.

Before Della was conceived, the three started creating a written contract, outlining how their family would work.

Wiley and Richards would have custody of Della, as well as financial responsibility.

Kangro would be a guardian, with rights to access.

To read the full article, click here.

Two friends in New York who have known each other for over a decade have been attempting to become parents together. The friends are not in a romantic relationship, nor do they live together. Their ideal situation was to be in a committed parenting partnership. After attempts at pregnancy, the friends were unsuccessful in getting pregnant, and decided to adopt. After a long process of waiting, one of them was granted a child from Ethiopia. Since the friends were not a couple or living together, only one parent was able to legally adopt the child. This is where it gets interesting.

When they returned to the U.S., the pair petitioned Manhattan Surrogate’s Court to have LEL named as a second legal parent, even though they don’t live together and are not romantically involved.

In a landmark ruling, Judge Rita Mella did so. (For the privacy of all involved, names were shortened or changed)

“From the moment they met G,, more than two years ago now, KAL and LEL have functioned as her parents,” the judge wrote in a decision from last month.

“G. calls KAL ‘Mommy’ and LEL ‘Daddy,’” and “although they live in separate households,” they “have created a nurturing family environment for G., including a well-thought-out, discussed and fluid method of sharing parenting responsibilities between their homes.”

Mella agreed, and used a 2010 state statute allowing “intimate partners” to adopt as a basis for allowing the couple’s the adoption to proceed, noting that the phrase can mean a close, long-term relationship.

She also cited the findings of the social worker who observed the family in action, and determined that “even though their relationship is not based on what many consider a traditional family, they exhibit a love and respect for one another and clearly cherish the family they have created.”

In what seems to be a never-ending court case, it appears as if the current judge hearing the Kansas sperm donor case is about to make a ruling. The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in October of 2012 against a man who donated sperm to a same-sex couple. The women had posted an ad on the internet seeking a sperm donor. After the child was born, the women split up and the parent who remained with the child full time applied for state assistance. This is when the state refused to help and went after the sperm donor as they believed he was responsible as the biological father. The three technically didn’t follow a Kansas statute that specifically deals with sperm donors.

The statute, KSA 23-2208(f), says, “The donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor’s wife is treated in law as if he were not the birth father of a child thereby conceived, unless agreed to in writing by the donor and the woman.”

Attorneys representing the state of Kansas and William Marotta presented arguments to a Shawnee County District Court judge Friday in the Craigslist case, which focuses on whether Marotta is legally considered a sperm donor or the father of a 4-year-old girl.

At the end of a nearly hourlong hearing, Judge Mary Mattivi said she would issue a written ruling addressing motions both sides have filed seeking summary judgment in their favor. A summary judgment is a determination made by a court without a full trial.

Marotta is fighting the action. He says he didn’t intend to be the child’s father and signed a contract waiving his parental rights and responsibilities while agreeing to donate sperm in a plastic cup to Schreiner and Angela Bauer, who was then her lesbian partner.  (source)

Is a known sperm donor a dad, or just a donor? What if the donor was in the child’s life for the first few years? Well, in California, unless an agreement was signed prior to conception, the donor is just a donor. Actor Jason Patric has been making headlines for the past several months over a legal battle he has undertaken. He is making progress and it’s quite possible there will be a favorable outcome in terms of legislation that is being proposed.

The 47-year-old is in Sacramento lobbying politicians for a proposal that allows the law to define him as a dad. A court has already ruled he’s just a sperm donor. “Because you’re a donor, you are not allowed to prove in any other statute or any other way, you’re a parent, even though I’m the biological father,” said Patric.

Patric’s drama started when he and his former girlfriend, Danielle Schreiber, agreed to have a child through artificial insemination. He was even a part of his son’s life for more than two years. The actor could have been considered the legal father if a signed agreement granting him that status was in place prior to conception. After a split and no legally binding contract in place, he lost custody and hasn’t seen the now 3-year-old for months.

St. Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, doesn’t like what he calls “the Hollywood circus” his bill has created. He just wants to help men and same-sex couples who have been in that situation.

“Because of the PR hype, it has lost its focus. To me the focus is parenting. What’s in the best interest of the child?” said Hill.

Calls to Schreiber’s Sacramento representative were not returned, but the California Cryobank is also opposed to changing the 25-year-old law that protects birth mothers from custody battles.

Alice Crisci, who is eight months pregnant through an anonymous donor, says we shouldn’t get in the middle of a court battle.

“The reality is he’s seeking to impact a few number of men that then disrupts tens of thousands of families. That seems like an irresponsible use of creating new laws,” said Crisci.

Patric insists Hill’s proposal just gives him and others a fighting chance to be part of their child’s life.

“This doesn’t give you your son back, your daughter back. It gives you the opportunity to go to court and present your evidence,” said Patric.

Schreiber attorney recently told ABC7News they hope lawmakers do not interfere with the rights they were promised.

Although Victorian law states that sperm donors are not considered the father, a new court ruling in Australia has made a landmark decision.

A divorced couple who remained friends decided to conceive via IVF. The man had also signed a document acknowledging he had no legal claim in relation to the child and wished to just be a sperm donor. His ex told the court she always intended to raise the child as a single mum with the man having only an avuncular role. But she permitted regular visits and a bond formed between her son and her ex.

Justice Paul Cronin held the state laws were inconsistent with, and therefore overridden by, federal legislation, which says a parent is a child’s biological parent. Now in their 40s, they remained friends and began IVF treatment in 2008 after the man agreed to donate sperm. The couple kept the parentage of the boy, born in 2010, a secret.

The man attended the birth of the child and visited him regularly, until the relationship between he and his former partner deteriorated in late 2011 after he revealed he had a girlfriend. The judge said the woman had effectively “stonewalled” the man, fearing he “would use his family’s wealth and power” to gain effective control of the child. He said concerns that sperm donors could be considered parents were irrelevant, as legislation did not impose obligations on unknown donors.

The judge said each case could be determined on its own facts. Shared parental responsibility concerning major long-term decisions was in the best interests of the child. The judge granted the father custody in an arrangement that graduated to alternate weekends and half of the school holidays.

Slater & Gordon family law specialist Heather McKinnon said the case was more about the child’s attachment to the biological father than how he was conceived.”The mother relinquished and allowed the child to form a relationship with the man. That is when she waived the rights under the legislation,” she said.

News Source

A German court recently ruled that a child which is born via an anonymous sperm donor is not eligible for child support from the government. So how did this come about? Apparently a woman who became pregnant via an anonymous sperm donor applied for child support after the birth of her baby and was denied. The court stated that there would be no conceivable way the state would get its money back as child support is an essentially an advance of money that the state would later be demanded or obtained from the father.

It’s an interesting predicament for the mother who most likely needs financial help from the state but is now without options for claiming child support. At the same time, the mother knew prior to conceiving that her donor was anonymous and that he had no legal rights to the child, including financial responsibility.

“The granting of support as a replacement service should be the exception in the case where the resort to the other parent is not possible,” the court said. The law specifically says that the state will not pay support if the mother refuses to help in identifying the father of her child. This should also apply to cases such as this one where a woman has become pregnant via anonymous sperm donation. The mother “consciously and willingly from the start onwards, stymied the identification of the other, support-liable parent,” the court concluded. Via The Local.