Under California law, sperm donors have no parental rights. This may seem fair enough (if you don’t believe two parents are better than one), but things get complicated when sperm donors offer their goods to their friends. This has been bad news for actor Jason Patric, who donated sperm to his ex-girlfriend and now wants parental rights to his biological son. California lawmakers are now scrambling to reevaluate when a sperm donor should and shouldn’t be a child’s legal father.
Patric vs. Schreiber: What Makes You “Just A Sperm Donor”
Jason Patric allegedly offered to act as a sperm donor to ex-girlfriend Danielle Schreiber on the condition that she not seek child support or tell anyone about the arrangement. A California court deemed that, because Patric and Schreiber were not a couple at the time of conception, Patric was simply a sperm donor and therefore has no parental rights, although the couple got romantic after the birth and Patric was a part of Gus’ life for two years. Schreiber claims Patric had no intent to become a father, and hasn’t helped raise Gus, although Patric is appealing, hoping to be saved by California legislation that would give more rights to sperm donors.
Redefining Sperm Donors — And Their Rights
The current problem with sperm donation is one of many examples of technology getting ahead of public policy, but the problem also lies in an increasing number of families with unmarried couples at the helm. New California legislation concerning sperm donors’ parental rights doesn’t require the mother’s consent — or even require the court to take into account the mother’s view to award parental rights to the sperm donor. A mother could lose exclusive parental rights if she has any contact or friendship with the donor, or if she encourages any contact with the child. Changes to current law would give sperm donors like Patric the right to prove they are legitimate fathers; the California National Organization for Women argues it would undermine mothers’ rights.
Senate Bill 115 is a proposal designed to fix a conflict between two Family Code sections. One section says any man, regardless of biological relation, can ask a court to declare paternity if he has taken the child into his home and openly treated the child as his own. However, another section says a man providing sperm for anyone other than his wife is not to be treated as the child’s father. In 2011 an exception was made to that latter section if the donor and mother make a written agreement before the child is conceived.
Constitutional law experts believe the current law still poses a problem: while unmarried couples use artificial insemination all the time, a mother may cut off the relationship between father and child whenever she wishes — something experts believe wasn’t intended but that the language of the statute implies. This means that a couple who has been together for years, unmarried and having conceived through artificial insemination, and has raised their children together, could break up and leave the father completely cut off. The current bill would let any sperm donor who has acted as a father sue at any time so a court can determine whether a parental relationship exists. Such proof fathers may present could include whether the father has spent time with the child and paid for the child’s care.
