Informal Sperm Donation in Utah

Legal Framework and Considerations

Utah’s legal framework for informal sperm donation, including at-home artificial insemination (AI), is governed by the 2002 Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), codified in Utah Code Title 78B, Chapter 15 (§ 78B-15-101 et seq.). Adopted in 2008, this statute provides a modern approach to assisted reproduction, defining "donor" and "assisted reproduction" without mandating physician involvement for donor non-paternity. This flexibility distinguishes Utah from states like Virginia, offering potential protection for informal AI, though ambiguities persist due to limited case law and Utah’s conservative legal context.

Key Provisions:

• Definition of Assisted Reproduction:
  • Utah Code § 78B-15-102(4) defines "assisted reproduction" as: "a method of causing pregnancy other than sexual intercourse," including: "(a) intrauterine insemination; (b) donation of eggs; (c) donation of embryos; (d) in vitro fertilization and transfer of embryos; and (e) intracytoplasmic sperm injection."
  • This broad definition encompasses at-home AI, with no statutory requirement for physician supervision, aligning with the 2002 UPA’s progressive intent.
• Definition and Status of Donor:
  • Utah Code § 78B-15-102(11) defines "donor" as: "an individual who produces eggs or sperm used for assisted reproduction, whether or not for consideration," excluding: "(a) a husband who provides sperm, or a wife who provides eggs, to be used for assisted reproduction by the wife; (b) a woman who gives birth…; or (c) a parent under [surrogacy provisions]."
  • Utah Code § 78B-15-702 states: "A donor is not a parent of a child conceived by means of assisted reproduction." This protection applies broadly, without a physician mandate, suggesting informal donors may avoid paternity absent contrary intent.
• Legal Parentage:
  • Utah Code § 78B-15-201 establishes parentage by birth, adoption, acknowledgment, or judicial order, with Utah Code § 78B-15-204 presuming paternity for a husband if the child is born during marriage or within 300 days post-marriage.
  • For AI, § 78B-15-702 implies donor exclusion, but unmarried recipients or non-biological parents may need adoption (Utah Code § 78B-6-117) or acknowledgment to secure parentage.
• Donor Paternity in Informal Contexts:
  • Unlike states requiring medical technology (e.g., Virginia’s § 20-158), § 78B-15-702’s donor exemption hinges on the act of assisted reproduction, not physician involvement. This suggests at-home AI donors could be protected if intent aligns with non-parental status, though lack of case law leaves this untested.
  • A signed pre-conception agreement clarifying the donor’s non-parental intent and the recipient’s sole parentage could bolster legal clarity, though enforceability depends on judicial discretion.
• Case Law and Precedents:
  • No Utah Supreme Court cases directly address informal sperm donation under the 2002 UPA as of March 2025. General parentage cases (e.g., R.P. v. K.S.W., 2014 UT App 38) affirm biological paternity can be rebutted by statutory provisions like § 78B-15-702, but none test at-home AI specifically.
  • Comparisons to states with the 2002 UPA (e.g., Wyoming’s § 14-2-403) suggest courts might uphold donor non-paternity if intent is clear, though Utah’s conservative judicial culture could prioritize biology in disputes.
• Practical Considerations:
  • At-home AI is feasible and potentially protected in Utah under § 78B-15-702, offering more flexibility than physician-mandated states. However, without case law, donors and recipients face some uncertainty.
  • Physician-supervised AI isn’t required but could provide documentation to reinforce intent, though it’s less practical for informal arrangements, especially in rural Utah where fertility services are sparse.
  • Utah’s conservative legal and cultural context may lead courts to favor biological ties in contested cases, particularly if child support or state benefits are involved.
• Special Cases:
  • Unmarried recipients or same-sex couples benefit from § 78B-15-702’s donor exemption but may need adoption (Utah Code § 78B-6-117) or acknowledgment (Utah Code § 78B-15-301) for non-biological parentage. Post-Obergefell (2015) marriage equality applies, but no automatic AI parentage exists without formal steps.
  • Surrogacy is addressed in Utah Code § 78B-15-801 et seq., requiring court validation, but informal sperm donation relies on the broader UPA framework.

Recommendations:

• Written Agreements: Use a signed pre-conception agreement to document donor non-parental intent, enhancing legal clarity under § 78B-15-702, though courts may still scrutinize intent.

Utah’s adoption of the 2002 UPA via Utah Code § 78B-15-702 provides a progressive framework for informal sperm donation, exempting donors from parenthood without requiring physician involvement. This flexibility offers potential protection for at-home AI, though untested judicial interpretations and Utah’s conservative leanings suggest caution. Parties should formalize intent with agreements and legal advice to ensure certainty in this permissive yet ambiguous landscape.

Statutory Resources:

• Utah Code - Title 78B, Chapter 15: Utah Uniform Parentage Act