Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:K.D. was in a romantic relationship with Marie, appellant J.S.’s sister. At some point during the relationship, K.D. wanted to have a child. As a result, J.S. agreed to act as the donor and provided the sperm used to artificially inseminate K.D. J.S. contends that he and K.D. verbally agreed that he would not act merely as a donor; rather, he would be involved in the child’s life. K.D. denies that such an agreement was ever made. In February 2000, K.D. gave birth to a healthy child, H.C.S., conceived with J.S.’s sperm. In June 2005, after K.D. and Marie ended their relationship and following K.D.’s denial of visitation and access to H.C.S., J.S. filed suit to adjudicate his parental rights. The parties later executed a Rule 11 agreement which provided J.S. with limited access to the child. Subsequently, K.D. filed a plea to the jurisdiction based on J.S.’ alleged lack of standing. Specifically, K.D. argued that a sperm donor cannot file a suit to adjudicate parental rights under the Texas Family Code; thus, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. The trial court granted K.D.’s plea and dismissed the case. J.S. appealed. HOLDING:Affirmed. J.S., the court noted, had argued that standing in a suit to adjudicate parentage is governed by Texas Family Code �160.602, which provides that “a proceeding to adjudicate parentage may be maintained by . . . a man whose paternity of the child is to be adjudicated.” But �160.702, another provision in the Family Code, states that a “donor is not a parent of a child conceived by means of assisted reproduction,” the court found. It is undisputed, the court stated, that H.C.S. was conceived by means of assisted reproduction and that J.S. was the sperm donor for the reproduction. Based on the plain language of the Family Code, the court concluded that J.S., as an unmarried man who provided sperm used for assisted reproduction and who did not sign and file an acknowledgment of paternity, does not have standing to pursue a suit to determine paternity of the child born through the assisted reproduction. The court noted that a male sperm donor could effectively become the parent of a child conceived by means of assisted reproduction if he and the mother of the child signed and filed an acknowledgment of paternity with the intent to establish the man’s paternity. But J.S. did not enter into such an agreement, the court stated. OPINION:Stone, J.; Lopez, C.J., and Stone and Duncan, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.