IN RE K.M.H. 285 Kan. 53, 169 P.3d 1025 (2007) CASE BRIEF

IN RE K.M.H.

285 Kan. 53, 169 P.3d 1025 (2007)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This appeal arises out of an artificial insemination leading to the birth of twins K.M.H. and K.C.H. The mother (M) petitioned to establish that the donor (F) had no parental rights under Kansas law. F sued for determination of his paternity. F appealed the dismissal of his action.

FACTS: A Kansas statute provides: '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 of a child thereby conceived, unless agreed to in writing by the donor and the woman.' K.S.A. 38-1114(f). M is an unmarried female lawyer who wanted to become a parent through artificial insemination from a known donor. She was a friend F., an unmarried male nonlawyer, who agreed to provide sperm for the insemination. Both are Kansas residents, and their oral arrangements for the donation occurred in Kansas, but M underwent two inseminations with F's sperm in Missouri. There was no formal written contract between M and F concerning the donation of sperm, the artificial insemination, or the expectations of the parties with regard to F's parental rights or lack thereof. The twins were born on May 18, 2005. The day after their birth, M filed a CINC petition concerning the twins, seeking a determination that D would have no parental rights. F filed an answer to the CINC petition and filed a separate paternity action acknowledging his financial responsibility for the children and claiming parental rights, including joint custody and visitation. The court held that Kansas law governed. F argued that K.S.A. 38-1114(f) unconstitutionally deprived him of his right to care, custody, and control of his children and violated public policy 'support[ing] the concept of legitimacy and the concomitant rights of a child to support and inheritance.' The district judge ruled K.S.A. 38-1114(f) was constitutional and applicable, and that the CINC petition did not constitute a written agreement departing from the provision for nonpaternity set forth in the statute. The judge granted M's motion, concluding as a matter of law that F had no legal rights or responsibilities regarding K.M.H. and K.C.H. F appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner