Informal Sperm Donation in Georgia

Legal Framework and Considerations

Georgia’s legal framework for informal sperm donation, including at-home artificial insemination (AI), is limited and lacks modern specificity. While the state has statutes addressing artificial insemination in narrow contexts, it does not comprehensively define "assisted reproduction" or "sperm donor" in the same way as states like California. Instead, Georgia relies on a mix of outdated statutes, common law principles, and judicial interpretations, leaving informal donation in a legal gray area. Recent court cases, such as Norman v. Xytex Corp. (2020), highlight the state’s approach to donor-related disputes but do not fully clarify paternity rules for at-home AI.

Key Provisions:

• Statutory Basis:
  • Georgia’s earliest relevant statute, O.C.G.A. § 19-7-21 (enacted 1964), states: "All children born within wedlock or within the usual period of gestation thereafter who have been conceived by means of artificial insemination are irrebuttably presumed legitimate if both spouses have consented in writing to the use and administration of artificial insemination." This legitimizes children conceived via AI within marriage but applies only when both spouses consent and does not address informal donation or unmarried recipients.
  • No Georgia statute explicitly defines "assisted reproduction" or "sperm donor" beyond this marital context, nor does it cover at-home AI outside clinical settings. The state has not adopted the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) in its 1973 or revised forms, leaving a gap in modern regulation.
• Donor Paternity:
  • In the absence of specific laws, Georgia courts determine paternity based on biology and intent. For informal sperm donation, a donor is not automatically exempt from paternity unless the donation occurs through a licensed physician with clear intent to relinquish rights—conditions implied but not mandated by O.C.G.A. § 19-7-21.
  • For at-home AI, a donor risks being declared the legal father if no written agreement exists or if he later acts as a parent (e.g., through involvement or support). Courts may impose child support obligations based on biological paternity, as seen in other states with similar gaps (e.g., Kansas cases like Marotta v. Kansas DCF).
• Court Cases:
  • Norman v. Xytex Corp. (Georgia Supreme Court, 2020): This landmark case involved a couple suing a sperm bank (Xytex) for misrepresenting a donor’s health and credentials, leading to a child with inherited disorders. The Court ruled that claims of fraud and misrepresentation could proceed under Georgia’s Fair Business Practices Act (O.C.G.A. § 10-1-390 et seq.), but not as "wrongful birth" claims, which are barred under Georgia precedent (Atlanta Obstetrics & Gynecology Group v. Abelson, 1990). The decision allowed recovery for specific damages (e.g., medical costs) but not the child’s existence itself.
  • Implication: While focused on sperm bank liability, Norman suggests that intent and documentation are critical in donor disputes. It does not directly address at-home AI but implies that clear agreements could influence paternity outcomes.
  • No known Georgia cases specifically rule on informal sperm donor paternity, leaving outcomes uncertain and case-specific.
• Intent and Documentation:
  • Georgia law does not provide statutory forms or requirements for sperm donor agreements, unlike California’s FAM § 7613.5. However, a written, pre-conception agreement between donor and recipient—stating the donor relinquishes parental rights and the recipient assumes sole responsibility—may be persuasive in court, though not guaranteed to be enforceable.
  • Without documentation, paternity disputes fall to judicial discretion, often prioritizing the child’s best interests and biological ties over donor intent.
• Practical Considerations:
  • At-home AI is practiced in Georgia due to its accessibility, but the lack of legal clarity increases risks for both donors and recipients. Donors may face unexpected child support claims, while recipients may struggle to establish sole parentage without judicial intervention.
  • Clinical AI through licensed physicians (e.g., via sperm banks like Xytex in Atlanta) offers more legal protection due to implied intent and third-party oversight, though it’s costlier and less common for informal arrangements.
  • Georgia’s conservative legal culture may lean toward assigning paternity to biological fathers in disputed cases, especially if state benefits are involved.
• Special Cases:
  • Unmarried recipients or same-sex couples face additional hurdles, as O.C.G.A. § 19-7-21 applies only to married couples. Parentage for non-biological parents may require adoption proceedings (e.g., second-parent adoption), which vary by county and judge.
  • Surrogacy is addressed separately under O.C.G.A. § 19-8-41, recognizing intended parents in embryo donation cases, but this does not extend to informal sperm donation.

Georgia’s outdated legal framework leaves informal sperm donation, particularly at-home AI, in a precarious position. While Norman v. Xytex Corp. demonstrates judicial willingness to address donor misrepresentation, the lack of explicit statutes means outcomes depend heavily on documentation and court interpretation. Parties engaging in informal donation should prioritize clear, written agreements and consult legal counsel to mitigate risks.