Legal Framework and Considerations
- AI: Recognized by Statute
- NI: Not Recognized
- Sperm donor agreement: Unknown — no clear public safe harbor
Washington State’s legal framework for informal sperm donation, including at-home artificial insemination (AI), is governed by the 2017 Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), codified in RCW 26.26A (enacted 2018). The donor rule in RCW 26.26A.605 is short and categorical for assisted reproduction; definitions of “assisted reproduction” and “donor” elsewhere in the chapter exclude sexual intercourse and structure who counts as a donor. That architecture allows informal AI without a physician-provision gate, while NI remains outside the AR definition. Limited case law still means documentation and counsel matter. Text checked against the official RCW site July 2026.
Official excerpt — RCW 26.26A.605: “A donor is not a parent of a child conceived by assisted reproduction.” Source: app.leg.wa.gov — RCW 26.26A.605. Read definitions in RCW 26.26A.010 and consent/intent provisions in §§ 610–615.
Core Provisions
| Provision | Statute | Key Implications |
|---|---|---|
| Assisted Reproduction | § 26.26A.010(4) | Defines as a method of causing pregnancy other than sexual intercourse, including intrauterine/intracervical insemination, gamete/embryo donation, IVF, and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Broadly encompasses at-home AI; no physician required. |
| Donor Non-Parentage | § 26.26A.605 | Donors have no parental rights or duties for children conceived via assisted reproduction. Applies to informal AI; protects against support/custody claims without physician mandate. Donor defined in § 26.26A.010(9) as gamete provider not including birth mother or parents under assisted repro/surrogacy provisions. |
| Intent-Based Parentage | § 26.26A.610 & § 26.26A.615 | Individuals consenting to assisted reproduction with intent to parent are parents; consent via signed record. Absent record, proven by clear evidence of pre-conception agreement or 4-year residency/holding out. Presumptions for spouses/partners (§ 26.26A.115). Donors excluded unless intent established. |
| Custody & Child Support | Chapter 26.09 (Custody) & Chapter 26.19 (Support) | Non-parents (donors) owe no support; custody defaults to birth/intended parents. Disputes resolved via intent evidence, presumptions, and adjudication, not biology alone. |
| Withdrawal/Disputes & Surrogacy | § 26.26A.700 et seq. (Surrogacy) | Consent via signed record; withdrawable pre-transfer or via evidence if undocumented. Post-birth disputes limited; surrogacy requires agreements with court validation. Cross-state enforcement via UIFSA. |
Key court cases (chronology)
- In re Parentage of J.M.K., 155 Wn.2d 374, 119 P.3d 840 (2005) — Ruling (Washington Supreme Court; pre–RCW 26.26A / UPA 2017): Under former parentage / AI statutes, a genetic father of children conceived by assisted reproductive technology (IVF) with an unmarried woman was held to be their legal father; the Court rejected using the old AI framework to treat him as a pure non-parent “donor” on those facts (he was a known genetic provider in a parentage dispute, not a bank anonymous donor). Chronology: decided long before 2018 codification of RCW 26.26A. Do not cite J.M.K. as current § 26.26A.605 black letter—the modern statute is categorical: “A donor is not a parent of a child conceived by assisted reproduction.”
- Current statute (RCW 26.26A, 2018+): § 26.26A.605 donor non-parentage for assisted reproduction (not sexual intercourse). No published Supreme Court decision fully restating informal known-donor DIY AI under 26.26A as of mid-2026—statute first; document intent.
Bottom line: Use RCW 26.26A.605 for current practice. J.M.K. is pre-reform history showing genetics + facts can produce parentage under old statutes when the provider is not treated as a pure statutory donor. Reviewed July 2026.
Practical Steps & Risks
- Documentation: Intended parents and donor should execute a signed consent record clarifying non-parental intent (§ 26.26A.615). Not mandatory for donor exemption but crucial evidentiary tool; pre-conception agreement recommended to also establish intended parent rights (§ 26.26A.610).
- Health Screens: Obtain private STI and genetic carrier tests; no state mandate for informal arrangements, but essential to mitigate transmission risks, especially in rural areas.
- Non-Bio Parent Rights: For couples, use signed consent to assisted reproduction (§ 26.26A.610) or parentage by acknowledgment (§ 26.26A.205) post-birth to secure the non-birthing parent's rights and reinforce donor exclusion—simpler/cheaper than adoption (§ 26.33). Married/domestic partners get automatic presumption (§ 26.26A.115).
- Risks: Natural insemination (NI) rarely protected—biology presumes paternity, overriding intent. Undocumented AI vulnerable to challenges via evidence standards; out-of-state moves may invoke UIFSA, though donor exemptions typically follow conception state's law. Washington's progressive stance minimizes but does not eliminate uncertainty.
- Consult: Contact the Washington State Bar Association's Lawyer Referral Service for family law experts: Find Legal Help (206-267-7010).