I'm a gay woman and wanted a child. I asked a friend of mine to contribute sperm and he did. I was under the impression that he didn't want to be a part of the child's life. I got pregnant on the first try. He didn't seem interested in my pregnancy at all until I found out the child's sex. Now that he knows it's a boy, he keeps hinting around being a father. He is a VERY fickle person and has gone back and forth on this matter. At first, I wasn't opposed to the idea of it but he can't even call him his son. He told his mother about the pregnancy and that he would be the father.
I was wondering what kind of rights he would have as a sperm donor and also, if I don't list him on the Birth Certificate, will he have any rights to my son. Bear in mind that he was JUST the sperm donor until I discovered the sex of the baby.

What does his contract with the clinic say? And what does yours say?

Any laws on this are that might enable him to go beyond the contract up to the states. What is your state?

Unless you have it documented and court approved in some manner that he is a sperm donor then he may have rights to the child. Was this done at a clinic or through a fertility doctor?

This is a fairly new area of law and it can vary widely by area. So ANY question on law needs to include your general locale as laws vary by area.

The main thing you left out is what contract you entered into with the sperm donor. This is going to be the key issue. Unless you have a contract in which he ceded any rights to any offspring that resulted from his donation then there is a possibility that he can gain parental rights. He will have to go to court to enforce those rights.

There have been other cases where sperm donors have gained rights, usually because the legal documentation has been lacking.

If he was just a "casual sperm donor" being that he is a personal friend of yours and you did not go through any medical facility for this then if he wants to pay child support and have visitation rights, basically he can do this. You need to explain to him that by his demanding to be on the birth certificate then he legally must provide for the child via child support and see what he says then. Being a father is one thing and being a casual sperm donor is another thing.

He may demand a DNA test be performed if he really wants to go that far BUT then he will be legally obligated to pay child support for the child and be able to have visitation.

Yes, did you use a clinic, and if so was there contracts done at that time.

But it is very likely that he could file in court for paternity to gain visitation with the child and all regular rights that any father would have.

An interesting case:
Indiana Lawyer
Court of Appeals Judges Ezra Friedlander and Michael Barnes affirmed the trial court’s decision in regards to the older child. Because there is very little case law on the issue regarding donor agreements and artificial insemination, the COA relied on Jhordan v. Mary K. 224 Cal. Rptr. 530 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986), which the Indiana Supreme Court cited in Straub v. B.M.T. by Todd, 645 N.E.2d 597 (Ind. 1994). An underlying factor upholding the contract between a donor and recipient is the involvement of a licensed physician in the insemination process. The contract is invalid if the child is conceived through intercourse, regardless of an agreement between the parties.

The COA’s ruling does indicate an attempt by the court to prevent incomplete, impetuous or informal donor agreements absolving a father of any responsibility. First, a physician must be involved in the process of artificial insemination, and the agreement must show the parties’ careful consideration of the implications of such an agreement, wrote Judge Friedlander. However, the COA declined to specify any minimum requirements for a donor agreement.

The COA remanded with instructions to grant Mother’s petition to establish paternity for the younger child. Therefore, while the judges found the donor had no obligation regarding the eldest child due to the contract, they found that the contract did not apply to the youngest child because of the ambiguous language. This ruling is significant in that the donor is ultimately financially responsible for the child and will have an opportunity to establish parental rights through the paternity action if he chooses to exercise them.

As I said, this is a new area of law.

MJoanna, please clarify the issues we have raised so we can further help.