20 A.3d 1171
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2011Background
- Single woman sought child without partner and avoided sperm bank/physician; used a known donor to inseminate at home; parties signed a voluntary relinquishment of parental rights and assumed financial responsibility by plaintiff; birth of child G.J.E. in 2010 with no listed father on birth certificate; a consent order reaffirmed donor relinquishment of rights and plaintiff’s sole responsibility; New Jersey law holds parental rights can be terminated only by statute, not by contract, and requires adoption or state intervention; statute N.J.S.A. 9:17-44(b) provides that a semen donor to a licensed physician for artificial insemination is treated as not father if no physician involvement; here no physician involved; court follows plain language of statute; court declines to terminate donor’s parental rights under artificial insemination statute; court grants plaintiff sole custody and no parenting time for defendant; adoption statute remains in effect; historical cases (C.M. v. C.C., In re Baby M, R.H. v. M.K.) underpin the illegality of contract-based termination of parental rights; court emphasizes legislative intent and statutory framework over private agreement and donor intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May parties terminate parental rights by contract? | Plaintiff argues contract termination should end all parental rights. | Defendant contends voluntary relinquishment should terminate rights. | No; contract cannot terminate rights; termination controlled by statute. |
| Does the artificial insemination statute apply where no physician is involved? | Statute should preclude paternity due to donor role as per agreement. | Statute applies only with physician involvement; no physician here. | Statute applies; absence of physician does not validate termination of rights. |
| Does biological paternity presumptively establish rights despite private agreement? | Biology creates parental rights; donor should be considered parent. | Statutory framework and lack of physician/institution remove rights. | Biological rights are not enforceable here; donor rights cannot be terminated under the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Baby M, 109 N.J. 396 (N.J. 1988) (parens patriae and adoption framework; private relinquishment not valid)
- C.M. v. C.C., 152 N.J. Super. 160 (N.J. Div. Ch. 1977) (donor-sperm case; donor relationships and paternity under prior law)
- R.H. v. M.K., 254 N.J. Super. 480 (N.J. Div. Ch. 1991) (consent to termination; adopts limitations on private agreements)
- Jhordan v. Mary K., 179 Cal.App.3d 386 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (artificial insemination statute; physician involvement emphasized)
- In re the Paternity of K.C.H. and K.M.H., 169 P.3d 1025 (Kan. 2007) (physician involvement suffices for paternity statute application)
- McIntyre v. Crouch, 98 Or.App. 462 (Or. 1989) (artificial insemination statute and non-husband donor)