New York Donor Insemination Law
New York law only takes into consideration the use of donor insemination by married couples. New York law presumes that a child conceived via artificial insemination under physician supervision and with the written consent of a husband and wife is the legitimate, natural child of that couple.
Cases Dealing with Donor Insemination
Courts have approved anonymous donor insemination, in which the donor’s parental rights are forfeited, for unmarried women. However, courts have also found that parties could not strip a known donor of his parental rights, even with an agreement among them to do so.
In one 2003 court case, Anonymous v. Anonymous, involving an unmarried heterosexual couple, the Appellate Division emphasized that the laws that determine the legitimacy of children conceived through artificial insemination apply only to married couples.
In a 1996 case, In re Adoption of Michael, a woman was inseminated before her marriage, but gave birth after she was married. The Surrogate’s Court considered whether the anonymous donor must be sought out before the woman’s husband could adopt the child, Michael. The court concluded that, although the provisions of the legitimacy law apply only to married women, it would be illogical to require notice to the donor in cases involving unmarried women (and, furthermore, that such a requirement might pose constitutional problems). The court acknowledged that artificial insemination, unlike surrogacy, is not against the public policy of New York. It concluded that the anonymous donor had forfeited his parental rights and need not be notified of the adoption proceedings.
In one complex 1994 case, Thomas S. v. Robin Y., Thomas, a gay man, donated semen to a lesbian, Robin, and her partner in order to conceive via artificial insemination. Thomas was not listed on the child’s birth certificate and did not contribute in any way during the pregnancy. Once the child, Ry, was born, Thomas orally promised the women that he would not call, support or give presents to Ry. The women later decided Ry should know her biological father and began permitting visits of various lengths. But when Thomas wished to take Ry to visit his parents, the women became uncomfortable and began to restrict visitation. In response, Thomas sought a determination of paternity and visitation. The Appellate Division found that Thomas was the biological father of Ry and sent the case back to the lower court for rulings regarding visitation and other parental rights and obligations. The court was not convinced by the parties’ oral agreement because it failed to comply with explicit statutory requirements for the surrender of parental rights. A dissenting opinion argued that Thomas should be barred from seeking parental rights to preserve the family structure the parties have created and the best interests of the child. The Court of Appeals decided not to review the case.
In a 1985 case, Karin T. v. Michael T., Karin married Michael, a non-operative female-to-male transsexual who never had his birth certificate altered to reflect his gender identity. During the marriage, Karin was inseminated by an anonymous donor under a written agreement signed by both Karin and Michael. She gave birth twice.. After the relationship ended, Karin sought child support and to have the marriage declared null and void. Michael argued that he could not be responsible for child support because he is female and could not be the children’s father. The Family Court found that Michael was barred from disclaiming his parental status. The court held that the artificial insemination agreement bound Michael to his obligation to the children. It reasoned that Michael’s execution of the agreement “brought forth these offspring as if done biologically” and he should not be able to benefit from his “fraudulent acts” by avoiding child support.
Citations: N.Y. DOM. REL. LAW § 73 (2003); Anonymous v. Anonymous, 302 A.D.2d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d. 2003); In re Adoption of Michael, 166 Misc.2d 973 (N.Y. Surr. Ct., Bronx County 1996); Thomas S. v. Robin Y., 209 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st. 1994); Karin T. v. Michael T., 127 Misc.2d 14 (N.Y. Fam. Ct., Monroe County 1985).
The legal information provided on this page is provided as a courtesy to the public. It is not designed to serve as legal advice. HRC does not warrant that this information is current or comprehensive.
Last Updated: 8/30/2004