In 1993, some new laws were passed about reproductive technology. One law said that if you donate eggs or sperm, you don’t have any legal rights or responsibilities to any kids that are born from it. But there are some exceptions, like if the donation is from a couple who wants to have a baby, or if there’s a special agreement in place. These laws have caused arguments and disagreements between same-sex couples and single moms, as well as confusion about how the baby was actually conceived. In the case Wakeman v. Dixon, the court had to decide on issues involving assisted reproductive technology and the rights of nontraditional families. The ruling had a big impact on similar cases later on. Wakeman and Dixon, a lesbian couple, wanted to have kids together. They signed a legal agreement with a sperm donor, saying they would both be parents to any children born. They also signed other papers agreeing to share responsibility for the kids, even if they stopped living together. But when they broke up, Wakeman sued to have parental rights, and Dixon said she didn’t have any. The court decided that under Florida law, only natural parents have the right to custody or visitation with their children. Agreements for non-parents to have visitation rights are unenforceable. This decision is based on previous cases that have established a parent’s fundamental rights to their child, even over grandparents. The court also rejected the argument that the agreements made the non-parent a legal parent. The decision is also supported by a similar case in the Second District court. In Lamaritata v. Lucas, the biological parents of a child had an agreement saying the father wouldn’t have any parental rights if the mother got pregnant through artificial insemination. But after the twins were born, the father tried to claim paternity. The court said the agreement wasn’t valid, and that a sperm donor is not a parent. They also said that non-parents, like step-parents and grandparents, don’t have visitation rights. So even though the parents had agreed to visits, the court said that part of the agreement wasn’t enforceable. The case involved a paternity dispute between a mother and a potential biological father. The court had to consider whether a state law and a contract between the parties could prevent paternity testing. The court decided that the mother could rely on the law and the contract until the court determined otherwise. The method of conception also played a role in the court’s decision. Budnick and Silverman made a deal for Silverman to be the biological father of Budnick’s child, with the agreement that Budnick would have sole custody and responsibility. Ten years later, Budnick wanted child support and full parental control, but Silverman argued that he should be treated as a sperm donor, not a father. The court said that a man who had a baby with a friend couldn’t use a contract to avoid paying child support, even though he had signed an agreement saying he wouldn’t have to pay. The court also said that the man couldn’t use the defense of laches, which is when someone waits too long to assert their rights, because he knew the woman might ask for child support in the future. This means the woman got everything she wanted, and the man didn’t get anything he was promised, all because the baby was conceived the natural way instead of through a fertility clinic. In a Florida case (A.A.B. v. B.O.C.), a same-sex couple used DIY artificial insemination to have a child. The biological mother’s brother was the sperm donor. After the couple broke up, the biological mother stopped her former partner from seeing the child. The biological father (the brother) then wanted to establish paternity and spend time with the child. The trial court said the brother could have parental rights because the sperm donation wasn’t done in a clinic and didn’t follow the law. But the Second District court disagreed and said that the way the sperm was donated doesn’t change the law. The Second District also mentioned a previous case where a written agreement was upheld, but in this case, the agreement was only oral. This raises questions about how much weight courts give to agreements made by the people involved. In Janssen v. Alicea, a man and a woman who were friends had a child through artificial insemination. The man wanted to be involved in raising the child, but the woman moved to California with the child. The man went to court to establish his rights as the father, but the woman said he was just a sperm donor. The court said there was a real argument about what their intentions were and sent the case back to the trial court to decide. This case is about two women, T.M.H. and D.M.T., who were in a relationship and wanted to have a child together. Since one of them couldn’t have a child, they used money from their joint bank account to get a doctor to help them. They had a child and raised her together for a while, but then the birth mother took the child and moved to Australia. A test showed that the non-birth mother was actually the biological mother. The court had to decide who had legal rights to the child. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that a statute in Florida that automatically deprived a lesbian woman of her parental rights was unconstitutional. The court said that the law violated the U.S. Constitution and Florida Constitution by denying the woman her fundamental right to be a parent. The court also said that the law violated equal protection by treating same-sex couples differently from heterosexual couples. The case has been sent back to the trial court to decide on visitation and child support, with the note that it doesn’t have to be an all-or-nothing choice between the two parents. The Supreme Court said that the law treats anyone who provides genetic material for assisted reproductive technology as a “donor,” but then exempts certain groups from relinquishing parental rights. The court said that the woman and her partner intended to parent the child, and therefore the law should not apply to her. The Supreme Court said that individuals have a fundamental right to be a parent, and this right includes the responsibility of caring for and raising the child. The majority opinion said that it wouldn’t be fair for a father who had a one night stand to have more rights to parent a child than a mother who had a committed relationship and planned for the child. T.M.H. had shown that she was committed to being a parent, and so she has the right to be a parent to her child. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that a law automatically taking away a mother’s parental rights violated her due process rights because it interfered with her fundamental right to be a parent. The court also found that the law discriminated against same-sex couples by treating them differently from heterosexual couples, which was not justified by any legitimate government interest. Therefore, the law was declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that signing a standard informed consent form did not count as giving up parental rights. They also said that the biological mother in this case was not an anonymous donor, but part of a committed couple using reproductive technology to have a child. The court also said that previous cases where non-parents tried to claim rights to a child were different because the circumstances were not the same. In conclusion, if you want to donate genetic material without any obligations to the child, be careful because a contract alone may not protect you. If you want to co-parent a child with whom you have no genetic connection, be careful and make sure to document all signs of intent and behavior consistent with establishing a parental relationship. This is an article about family law cases in Florida. It talks about different court cases and the decisions made by the judges. The article also mentions movies and books related to family and relationships. It was written by a lawyer who is an expert in family law. The Florida Bar wants its members to understand their responsibilities to the public, make the justice system better, and improve the study of law.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-progeny-of-floridas-reproductive-technology-statutes/
Leave a Reply