20 A.3d 1171
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2011Background
- This case asks whether two private parties can contract to terminate parental rights via a self-administered artificial insemination process.
- Court holds that parental rights cannot be terminated by contract; termination is governed by statute.
- Plaintiff, a single woman, obtained semen from Defendant in a non-clinical setting and inseminated herself.
- On April 12, 2010 the parties signed an agreement in which Defendant relinquished all parental rights and Plaintiff assumed all financial responsibilities.
- Child G.J.E. was born December 17, 2010; a consent order reaffirmed Defendant’s relinquishment of rights.
- Court considers whether the artificial insemination statute (N.J.S.A. 9:17-44) applies when no licensed physician was involved and when there is no second parent to adopt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can parental rights be terminated by contract? | Rely on agreement to relinquish rights and assume sole parenting. | Contract should terminate rights under parties’ understanding. | No; termination of parental rights cannot be effected by private contract. |
| Does N.J.S.A. 9:17-44(b) apply where no physician was involved? | Statute should preclude donor paternity despite lack of physician involvement. | Statutory framework should control paternity regardless of physician involvement. | Statute governs donor paternity; lack of physician involvement does not exempt donor from the statute. |
| Can the donor’s parental rights be terminated under the circumstances without an adoptive arrangement? | Consent to terminate rights should be sufficient because there is an agreement. | No second adoptive party exists; rights cannot be terminated by private agreement. | Termination of parental rights not permissible by the parties’ contract; custody awarded to Plaintiff. |
| What governs the court’s decision regarding the donor’s paternity in this context? | Biological relationship could trigger paternity under existing presumptions. | Statutory presumption and insemination framework should limit paternity. | Statutory framework controlling artificial insemination applies; donor’s parental rights cannot be terminated under the agreement. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Baby M, 109 N.J. 396 (N.J. 1988) (parenslaughter. termination of parental rights requires statute; contract invalid)
- C.M. v. C.C., 152 N.J. Super. 161 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1977) (biological mother’s private arrangements; rights preserved)
- R.H. v. M.K., 254 N.J. Super. 480 (N.J. Super. Ct. Div. 1991) (consent to adoption not dispositive when statutory process not followed)
- Jhordan C. v. Mary K., Victoria T., 179 Cal.App.3d 386 (Cal. App. 1986) (physician involvement required by AI statute; donor not automatically father)
- In re the Paternity of K.C.H. and K.M.H., 169 P.3d 1025 (Kan. 2007) (physician involvement suffices to trigger paternity statute; not strictly requiring donor directly to physicians)
- Mclntyre v. Crouch, 780 P.2d 239 (Or. App. 1989) (statutory framework; artificial insemination context without physician cited)
- Hardy ex rel. Dowdell v. Abdul-Matin, 198 N.J. 95 (N.J. 2007) (interpretation of statutory language; plain meaning governs)