Legal Framework and Considerations
- AI: Not Recognized
- NI: Not Recognized
- Sperm donor agreement: Unknown — no clear public safe harbor
Official excerpt — Fla. Stat. § 742.14: “The donor of any egg, sperm, or preembryo, other than the commissioning couple or a father who has executed a preplanned adoption agreement under s. 63.213, shall relinquish all maternal or paternal rights and obligations with respect to the donation or the resulting children.” Source: official host. Read with § 742.13 ART definitions (lab handling of human eggs or preembryos). The Florida Supreme Court held in Brito (2025) that this relinquishment rule applies only when ART is involved—not ordinary at-home AI. July 2026.
Case excerpt — Brito v. Salas / Rivera v. Salas, Nos. SC2024-1184 & SC2024-1190 (Fla. Dec. 30, 2025) (Florida Supreme Court; majority): Question presented: “whether a man whose sperm is used to conceive a child via at-home artificial insemination automatically relinquishes all paternal rights and obligations to the child by operation of law.” Holding: “we answer that question in the negative.” “We hold section 742.14 only applies when assisted reproductive technology is involved. Accordingly, we quash the decision below.” ART under § 742.13 means lab handling of eggs/preembryos—not drugstore at-home syringe AI. “Rivera’s paternal rights and obligations to the child were not automatically relinquished pursuant to section 742.14.” Court disapproved A.A.B. v. B.O.C., 112 So. 3d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), and approved the outcome of Enriquez v. Velazquez, 350 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Narrow caveat: the Court “do[es] not … address … Rivera’s likelihood of success in establishing any legal fatherhood rights under the traditional statutory requirements governing paternity.” PDF: hosted copy · official flcourts.gov. Commentary: Bioethics Today (Jan. 2026). Three justices dissented. July 2026.
Florida’s assisted-reproduction donor rule is in Chapter 742, especially Fla. Stat. § 742.13 and § 742.14. Section 742.14 says a “donor” of egg, sperm, or preembryo relinquishes parental rights in the resulting children (with narrow exceptions). But “assisted reproductive technology” is defined as procedures involving laboratory handling of human eggs or preembryos (IVF, GIFT, and similar)—not ordinary at-home sperm-only AI. In Brito v. Salas / Rivera v. Salas (Fla. Dec. 30, 2025), the Florida Supreme Court held that § 742.14 does not automatically strip parental rights from a man who provides sperm for at-home artificial insemination. That means DIY known-donor AI is not protected by the clinic/ART donor-relinquishment statute; biology-based paternity remains available under ordinary parentage rules. Surrogacy remains under § 742.15. Reviewed July 2026.
Core Provisions
| Provision | Statute | Key Implications |
|---|---|---|
| Assisted Reproduction | § 742.13(2) | Defines as lab-based procedures (IVF, gamete transfer); excludes at-home AI. No informal protections. |
| Donor Non-Parentage | § 742.14 | Donor relinquishes rights in ART; applies only to lab-based, not informal/at-home. Biology defaults (§ 742.10). |
| General Parentage | § 742.10 | Paternity by biology or acknowledgment; marital presumption. Informal AI vulnerable to claims. |
| Custody & Child Support | Ch. 61 (Custody) & Ch. 61 (Support) | Biological parents liable; best interests guide disputes. Informal donors at risk without exclusion. |
| Withdrawal/Disputes & Surrogacy | § 632.703 (Adoption) & § 742.15 (Surrogacy) | Court-validated surrogacy excludes donors; informal under general. Disputes via court; cross-state via UIFSA. Surrogacy contracts enforceable if validated, but compensated traditional surrogacy risky. |
Key court cases
- Brito v. Salas / Rivera v. Salas, Nos. SC2024-1184 & SC2024-1190 (Fla. Dec. 30, 2025) — Ruling: A man who provides sperm for at-home artificial insemination does not automatically relinquish paternal rights under § 742.14. That statute applies only when “assisted reproductive technology” (lab handling of eggs/preembryos) is used. The Court quashed the Second District’s contrary decision, disapproved A.A.B. v. B.O.C. (2d DCA 2013), and approved the outcome of Enriquez v. Velazquez (5th DCA 2022). The Court did not decide whether the genetic provider would win full legal fatherhood on remand under ordinary paternity statutes—only that § 742.14 does not wipe him out by operation of law. Official PDF linked above. Background: Bioethics Today.
- Enriquez v. Velazquez, 350 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) — Ruling: § 742.14 does not bar paternity for at-home AI because that conception is not “assisted reproductive technology” under § 742.13. Outcome later approved by the Florida Supreme Court in Brito.
- Lamaritata v. Lucas, 823 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) — Ruling: Where the parties used a written donor agreement and the provider fit the statutory “donor” role in the ART framework, he could not establish paternity or visitation—§ 742.14 extinguished parental rights for that clinical/ART-style donation arrangement. Distinct from pure DIY at-home cases after Brito.
- D.M.T. v. T.M.H., 129 So. 3d 320 (Fla. 2013) — Ruling: In a same-sex IVF/egg-sharing dispute, the Supreme Court recognized the genetic mother’s parental rights and discussed § 742.14’s policy for ART donors. Does not hold that § 742.14 covers drugstore at-home AI (Brito later settles that against automatic relinquishment).
Bottom line for readers: Florida’s § 742.14 donor-relinquishment shield is for lab-based ART, not DIY known-donor AI. After Brito, informal providers can face ordinary paternity litigation; recipients cannot assume the statute erased the genetic father. Map status stays outside a clear informal safe harbor. Reviewed July 2026.
Practical Steps & Risks
- Options for Arrangements: Florida's lab focus demands strategy—trust can shield more than signatures. Anonymous donation (no name shared) relies on mutual trust; no agreement needed, evading risks if no disputes (e.g., state can't seek support without identity). Semi-anonymous with private understandings emphasizes bonds. A signed/notarized pre-conception agreement clarifying non-parental intent is an option for evidence, but it names the donor, potentially triggering claims—use sparingly if trust is absolute and risks assessed. The only guarantee: Licensed clinic/bank with lab involvement (§ 742.13) for statutory exemption.
- 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 acknowledgment (§ 742.10) or judgment post-birth to secure the non-birthing parent's rights—simpler/cheaper than adoption (§ 632.703). Married spouses get presumption under § 742.11; unmarried/same-sex face gaps.
- Risks: After Brito (2025), DIY at-home AI is not covered by § 742.14’s automatic donor relinquishment—known genetic providers can pursue ordinary paternity. NI is unprotected. Lab-based ART under §§ 742.13–742.14 remains the statutory path that extinguishes donor parentage when the statute’s definitions are met. Written DIY “donor” notes do not create a § 742.14 safe harbor. Agency support cases and multi-state moves (UIFSA) still matter if identity is known.
- Consult: Contact the Florida Bar's Lawyer Referral Service for family law experts: Find a Lawyer (800-342-8011).