Sperm Donor Lacks Parental Rights to Child of Same-Sex Marriage
Sperm Donor Lacks Parental Rights to Child of Same-Sex Marriage
Tennessee child custody case summary in divorce with sperm donor involvement.
Pamela Estelle Harrison et al., v. Shannon Nicole Harrison
The two female spouses in this Montgomery County, Tennessee, case were married in Iowa in 2011. They wanted to have children, so one of them conceived by artificial insemination. The sperm donor was the football coach of one of the parties’ children by an earlier marriage. Two children were born through the artificial insemination. They called one spouse “mommy” and the other parent “mama.” The sperm donor played no role as father.
The spouses divorced in 2018, and the biological mother took the position that the other spouse had no rights to the children. The sperm donor subsequently intervened in the case, and asserted that he wanted to be part of the children’s lives.
The trial court ruled that the biological father was merely a sperm donor, with no intention of becoming a legal parent. Accordingly, he was not named the parent, and was not granted any parenting time. The trial court noted that if the biological mother desired, she could allow him to have time with the children. The biological mother was named primary residential parent, and her spouse was awarded 132 days of parenting time per year. The sperm donor then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The appeals court noted that the case depended on the construction of Tennessee’s sperm donor statute. That statute provides that a child born to a married woman as a result of artificial insemination, with the consent of the “married woman’s husband” was deemed to be a legitimate child of the marriage.
The Court construed this statute in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell case, which allowed gay marriage in the U.S. That case recognized that marriage affected numerous rights, including child custody, and that same-sex couples were entitled to all benefits of marriage. The court held that construing the word “husband” in the statute in a non-gender-neutral manner would violate this holding. It therefore held that the word must include both male and female spouses.
The sperm donor also argued that the statute didn’t apply because there was no written agreement about his role. However, the court held that a written agreement was not necessary, and that the lower court’s ruling carried out the intent of all of the parties.
The sperm donor also argued that the juvenile court was the court with jurisdiction over children “born out of wedlock.” But the appeals court pointed out that this child was born of a marriage, and that jurisdiction by the divorce court was proper.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
No. M2020-01140-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2021).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Child Custody Laws in Tennessee.
See also Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family featuring examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases available on Amazon.com.
