Legal Framework and Considerations
In California, informal sperm donation, including at-home artificial insemination (AI), is a legally recognized method of assisted reproduction under the California Family Code. The state’s laws, particularly FAM § 7613 and FAM § 7613.5, provide a clear framework for establishing parentage and protecting donors from unintended legal responsibilities when proper conditions are met. Modeled on the 2017 Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), these provisions emphasize intent via written agreements, explicitly extending protections to informal settings without physician mandates. This places California among the most donor-friendly states, with sample forms available for ease of use. No substantive changes as of October 2025.
Core Provisions
| Provision | Statute | Key Implications |
|---|---|---|
| Assisted Reproduction | § 7613(b) | Defines as methods causing pregnancy other than sexual intercourse, including AI (at-home/clinical), IVF, and gamete/embryo donation. No physician required for informal AI; donor protections apply via intent. |
| Donor Non-Parentage | § 7613(b)(2) | Donors have no parental rights or duties for children conceived via assisted reproduction if non-spousal and pre-conception written agreement exists (or oral with clear evidence). Applies to informal AI. |
| Intent-Based Parentage | § 7613.5 & § 7611 | Signed consent establishes intended parents (e.g., non-bio partner). Presumptions for spouses; unmarried need voluntary declaration or judgment. Donors excluded unless later conduct implies parentage. |
| Custody & Child Support | § 4050 et seq. (Support) & § 3000 et seq. (Custody) | Non-parents (donors) owe no support; custody defaults to birth/intended parents. Disputes resolved via intent evidence and best interests, not biology alone. |
| Withdrawal/Disputes & Surrogacy | § 7960 et seq. (Surrogacy) | Written agreements required for surrogacy with validation; informal donation under broader UPA. Post-birth disputes via adjudication; cross-state via UIFSA. |
Key Court Cases (2024-2025)
No major 2025 cases directly address informal sperm donation under FAM § 7613, but precedents affirm donor protections:
- Legacy: Steven S. v. Deborah D. (127 Cal. App. 4th 1177, 26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 51, 2005): Court upheld donor non-parentage under § 7613 despite post-birth involvement, emphasizing pre-conception intent via agreement; biology alone insufficient.
2025 outlook: Stable framework favors documented intent; recent surrogacy rulings (e.g., 2024 embryo disputes) reinforce UPA alignment without altering donor exemptions.
Practical Steps & Risks
- Documentation: Intended parents and donor should sign a pre-conception written agreement clarifying non-parental intent (§ 7613(b)(2)). Not mandatory if oral with evidence, but crucial—use California's statutory sample (§ 7613.5 forms) for standardized language; can also establish intended parent rights (§ 7613.5).
- Health Screens: Obtain private STI and genetic carrier tests; no state mandate for informal arrangements, but essential to mitigate risks.
- Non-Bio Parent Rights: For couples, use voluntary declaration of parentage (Form VS-505, § 7611) or judgment post-birth to secure the non-birthing parent's rights and reinforce donor exclusion—simpler/cheaper than adoption (§ 8604). Married spouses get automatic presumption (§ 7611).
- Risks: Natural insemination (NI) not protected—biology presumes paternity. Undocumented AI vulnerable if intent unclear or donor later acts as parent; out-of-state moves may invoke UIFSA. California's progressive stance minimizes risks with proper agreements.
- Consult: Contact the State Bar of California's Lawyer Referral Service for family law experts: Find a Lawyer (415-538-2250).