{
  "code": "US-IN",
  "name": "Indiana",
  "last_reviewed": "2026-07",
  "confidence": "medium",
  "black_letter": "Indiana lacks a free-standing informal AI donor non-parentage statute. Straub v. B.M.T., 645 N.E.2d 597 (Ind. 1994) (Supreme Court): conception by intercourse cannot be waived as mere \u201cdonation.\u201d In re Paternity of M.F., 938 N.E.2d 1256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010): known friend as sperm provider; thorough attorney-drafted Donor Agreement for older child; appellate record did NOT establish physician involvement or the method of the older child\u2019s conception. Held: Mother failed to prove a voiding conception method, so denial of paternity as to the older child was affirmed; the same agreement did not cover a later child, so paternity of the younger child was established. Majority also stated public-policy standards for donor contracts (physician involvement with semen first provided to the physician + thorough formal writing)\u2014guidance for future agreements, not a finding that a physician was used in M.F. Map AI status remains Unknown for casual informal AI.",
  "ai_informal": "insufficient_primary",
  "ni": "not_recognized",
  "physician_or_clinic_for_safe_harbor": "often",
  "agreement_effect": "evidence_only",
  "key_citations": [
    {
      "label": "In re Paternity of M.F., 938 N.E.2d 1256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)",
      "url": "https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/25439-court-rules-on-artificial-insemination-issues",
      "quote": "There was no indication in the appellate materials or the hearing of the manner in which Mother was inseminated with the first pregnancy. \u2026 The Court held that: (1) a physician must be involved in the process of artificial insemination, and the semen must first be provided to the physician; and (2) a written instrument memorializing the arrangement must be sufficiently thorough and formalized. \u2026 [P]arties who execute a less formal and thorough agreement than this one do so at their own peril."
    },
    {
      "label": "Kids\u2019 Voice case summary \u2014 M.F. (PDF digest of 938 N.E.2d 1256)",
      "url": "/legal/opinions/US-IN-Paternity-of-MF-2010-KidsVoice-digest.pdf"
    },
    {
      "label": "Straub v. B.M.T. by Todd, 645 N.E.2d 597 (Ind. 1994)",
      "url": "https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Straub+v+B.M.T.+645+N.E.2d+597",
      "quote": "The majority of states adopting [similar] legislation\u2026hold that the donor of semen\u2026provided to a licensed physician for use in the artificial fertilization of a woman, is treated under the law as if he\u2026were not the natural parent of the child thereby conceived."
    }
  ],
  "emerging_law_note": "Do not describe M.F. as a case that found physician involvement on its facts\u2014the method of conception was unproven. The physician language is the majority\u2019s stated standard for enforceable donor contracts. M.F. is Court of Appeals, binding on Indiana trial courts. Map stays Unknown for informal AI.",
  "page": "/Pages/US/IN/in.html",
  "region_group": "US",
  "status_badges": {
    "AI-Single": "Unknown",
    "AI-Married": "Unknown",
    "NI": "Banned",
    "Contract": "Unknown"
  }
}