{
  "code": "US-KS",
  "name": "Kansas",
  "last_reviewed": "2026-07",
  "confidence": "high",
  "black_letter": "Kan. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 23-2208(f): the donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for AI of a woman other than the donor\u2019s wife is treated as if not the birth father (unless writing to the contrary). In re K.M.H., 169 P.3d 1025 (Kan. 2007) (Supreme Court) enforces that framework: writing required to restore known-donor parentage; sperm need not go hand-to-hand to the physician; writing rule is constitutional. Informal AI without the physician pathway is outside the clear statutory safe harbor. The Marotta/DCF litigation ended in a November 2016 Shawnee County District Court order (trial-level, not appellate) that Marotta was not the legal father\u2014after an earlier adverse district-court phase and multi-year exposure. That fact-specific trial outcome does not rewrite \u00a7 23-2208(f).",
  "ai_informal": "clinic_or_physician_required",
  "ni": "not_recognized",
  "physician_or_clinic_for_safe_harbor": "yes",
  "agreement_effect": "evidence_only",
  "key_citations": [
    {
      "label": "Kan. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 23-2208",
      "url": "https://www.ksrevisor.org/statutes/chapters/ch23/023_022_0008.html",
      "quote": "The donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor's wife is treated in law as if he were not the birth father of a child thereby conceived, unless agreed to in writing by the donor and the woman."
    },
    {
      "label": "In re K.M.H., 169 P.3d 1025 (Kan. 2007)",
      "url": "https://kscourts.gov/Cases-Decisions/Decisions/Published/In-re-K-M-H",
      "quote": "The donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor's wife is treated in law as if he were not the birth father of a child thereby conceived, unless agreed to in writing by the donor and the woman. \u2026 K.S.A. 38-1114(f) does not require a sperm donor to provide his sperm directly to a physician performing an artificial insemination. \u2026 The requirement \u2026 that any opt-out agreement \u2026 must be in writing does not result in an equal protection or due process violation."
    }
  ],
  "emerging_law_note": "Leading Supreme Court authority is In re K.M.H. (2007) on physician path + writing opt-out. Do not map-code Kansas as Court-Precedent or Unknown based on Marotta: the favorable 2016 result was district court, not a published appellate rewrite of the physician gate. Always re-read current official code.",
  "page": "/Pages/US/KS/ks.html",
  "region_group": "US",
  "status_badges": {
    "AI-Single": "Banned",
    "AI-Married": "Banned",
    "NI": "Banned",
    "Contract": "Unknown"
  }
}