In re K.M.H.

Supreme Court of Kansas · 2007 · Family Law

Family LawPaternityArtificial InseminationChoice of LawConstitutional Lawartificial inseminationsperm donorknown donor

Facts

An unmarried Kansas woman sought to have children through artificial insemination using sperm from a known donor, also a Kansas resident. Their arrangements were oral, not written; the donor accompanied her to a Missouri clinic for the first unsuccessful insemination, and for the second successful insemination he gave sperm to the woman, who delivered it to the Missouri physician. After twins were born in Kansas, the mother filed a CINC petition seeking a ruling that the donor had no parental rights, and the donor filed a paternity action claiming parental rights and accepting financial responsibility. The district court held that K.S.A. 38-1114(f) treated him as not the birth father because there was no written agreement.

Issue

Whether Kansas or Missouri law governed the donor's paternity claim, and if Kansas law applied, whether K.S.A. 38-1114(f) constitutionally and correctly barred a known sperm donor from asserting parental rights absent a written agreement with the mother. The court also considered whether the sperm was sufficiently provided to a licensed physician, whether the CINC petition satisfied the statute's writing requirement, whether K.S.A. 38-1114(a)(4) supplied parental rights, and whether equity required reversal.

Rule

When Kansas has significant contacts with the parties and the transaction, Kansas law may govern a paternity dispute arising from artificial insemination. Under K.S.A. 38-1114(f), the donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor's wife is treated in law as if he were not the birth father unless the donor and the woman agreed in writing; this statute applies to known donors, does not require the donor personally to deliver sperm directly to the physician, and is constitutional as applied to a donor who alleges only an oral agreement.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nora Ellison and Caleb Vance, both longtime residents of Wichita, orally arranged in Kansas for Caleb to provide sperm so Nora could conceive through artificial insemination. Nora drove to a clinic in Tulsa for the procedure, later gave birth in Kansas, and the child has always lived in Kansas.

In a later Kansas paternity action by Caleb, which law should a Kansas court most likely apply under the majority's approach?

Explanation. The majority held Kansas law may govern when Kansas has significant contacts with the parties and the transaction, making application of Kansas law neither arbitrary nor unfair. Relevant contacts include the parties' Kansas residence, the Kansas-made arrangement, transfer of sperm in Kansas, and the child's birth and residence in Kansas. The out-of-state clinic location alone is insufficient to displace Kansas law. (Derived from In re K.M.H. (n.d.).)