Legal Framework and Considerations
- AI: Unknown — no clear public safe harbor
- NI: Not Recognized
- Sperm donor agreement: Unknown — no clear public safe harbor
About “Unknown” (AI status): This project has not identified a clear published statute or leading case establishing a donor non-parentage safe harbor for informal AI in this jurisdiction. That is common in emerging parentage law—it is not a finding that private donation is criminal. See Emerging law & Unknown status.
Case excerpt — In re Paternity of M.F., 938 N.E.2d 1256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (Court of Appeals; published). Facts (important): A known friend provided sperm so Mother and her life partner could have children; an attorney-drafted multi-page Donor Agreement covered the older child. On appeal, there was no proof of how the older child was conceived—including no finding that a physician was involved. Mother sought to void the agreement as against public policy but failed to prove conception by intercourse (which Straub would invalidate) or any other voiding method. Held as to the older child: Mother bore the burden to avoid the contract; she failed; denial of paternity affirmed. Held as to the younger child: the same writing did not cover a later pregnancy; paternity established; remanded to grant Mother’s petition. Majority’s stated public-policy standards (what future known-donor contracts should meet, drawing on Straub / UPA models)—not a finding that this couple used a clinic: “(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.” Parties with less formal writings “do so at their own peril.” Intermediate appellate opinion (binding on Indiana trial courts). Do not misread M.F. as a case that found physician involvement on its facts—the physician language is the majority’s standard for enforceable donor contracts, while the older-child result turned on burden of proof plus a thorough writing. Coverage: Indiana Lawyer (Dec. 2010); digest: hosted Kids’ Voice summary · original. July 2026.
Case excerpt — Straub v. B.M.T. by Todd, 645 N.E.2d 597 (Ind. 1994) (Indiana Supreme Court): “The majority of states adopting [similar] legislation…hold that the donor of semen…provided to a licensed physician for use in the artificial fertilization of a woman, is treated under the law as if he…were not the natural parent of the child thereby conceived.” Supreme Court survey language while rejecting an informal waiver involving intercourse (“there is no such thing as ‘artificial insemination’ by intercourse”). M.F. later builds on Straub for when known-donor AI contracts may be enforced. July 2026.
Indiana has no free-standing statute that cleanly defines informal sperm donation or donor non-parentage the way modern UPA states do. Parentage defaults sit in the general paternity code (Ind. Code § 31-14-7-1 et seq.); surrogacy contracts are restricted under Ind. Code § 31-20-1-1. Leading guidance is case law. In Straub (1994), the Indiana Supreme Court rejected a support waiver after conception by intercourse. In In re Paternity of M.F. (2010)—covered by the Indiana Lawyer—the Court of Appeals enforced a thorough, attorney-drafted known-donor agreement as to one child and refused to extend it to a later child. Critically, the appellate record in M.F. did not establish that a physician participated in the older child’s conception; the majority still listed physician involvement + formal writing as the public-policy standards it expects for donor contracts, while the older-child result turned on Mother’s failure to prove a voiding method of conception. Map status remains Unknown for casual informal AI.
Core Provisions
| Provision | Statute | Key Implications |
|---|---|---|
| General Parentage | § 31-14-7-1 | Presumes marital paternity; biology for non-marital. No AI/donor specifics; informal vulnerable. |
| Paternity | § 31-14-7-2 | Biology establishes unless rebutted; tests admissible. Informal donors risk claims. |
| Surrogacy | § 31-20-1-1 | Void contracts; no broader AI rules. Informal unregulated. |
| Custody & Child Support | § 31-17-2-8 (Custody) & § 31-16-6-1 (Support) | Biological parents liable; best interests guide disputes. Informal donors at risk without exclusion. |
| Withdrawal/Disputes & Surrogacy | § 31-19-2-1 et seq. (Adoption) | No surrogacy rules; informal under general parentage. Disputes via court; cross-state via UIFSA. |
Key court cases
Indiana has no statute that automatically makes an informal known donor a non-parent. What you get is case law:
- In re Paternity of M.F., 938 N.E.2d 1256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) —
- Facts: Known friend as sperm provider; attorney-drafted Donor Agreement for the older child only. No appellate finding that a physician was involved; the manner of the older child’s conception was not established on the record (Kids’ Voice digest; Indiana Lawyer).
- Held — older child: Mother, attacking the contract, had the burden to prove a conception method (e.g., intercourse under Straub) that made the agreement void as against public policy. She failed. Denial of paternity as to the older child affirmed.
- Held — younger child: The same agreement did not cover a later pregnancy. Paternity established; trial court reversed on that child.
- Majority’s stated standards for donor contracts (guidance drawn from Straub / UPA models—not a finding that these parties used a clinic): physician involvement with semen first provided to the physician, plus a thorough formal writing. Less formal agreements are “at their own peril.”
- Straub v. B.M.T. by Todd, 645 N.E.2d 597 (Ind. 1994) — Ruling: Indiana Supreme Court: a man who conceives by sexual intercourse cannot avoid paternity with a private “I’m only a donor” waiver. There is “no such thing as ‘artificial insemination’ by intercourse.” The Court surveyed other states’ licensed-physician AI statutes but did not enact one for Indiana.
- Levin v. Levin, 645 N.E.2d 601 (Ind. 1994) — Ruling: Marital AI / non-biological parent issues in a husband-wife setting; not a known-donor peer-to-peer safe harbor.
Bottom line: M.F. is not a “clinic was used” case on its facts. It is a published Court of Appeals decision that (1) enforced a thorough known-donor writing for one child when the challenger failed to prove a voiding conception method, (2) refused to extend that writing to a later child, and (3) told future parties that the safer public-policy model is physician involvement + formal writing. Casual notes and NI remain high risk. Map status stays Unknown for informal AI. Reviewed July 2026.
Practical Steps & Risks
- Options for Arrangements: After M.F., do not assume a casual at-home deal is “fine because M.F. had no physician.” On those facts the method of conception was simply unproven, and Mother lost her attack on a multi-page attorney-drafted agreement as to one child only. Going forward, the majority said the safer model is (1) true AI with a licensed physician (semen first provided to the physician) and (2) a formal, thorough written instrument—not a casual note. Even a strong writing may cover only the named pregnancy. NI / intercourse is unprotected (Straub). Agency support cases can force the issue when identity is known.
- Health Screens: Obtain private STI and genetic carrier tests; no state mandate for informal arrangements, but essential to mitigate risks.
- Non-Bio Parent Rights: For couples, use voluntary acknowledgment (§ 31-14-2-1) or judgment post-birth—simpler/cheaper than adoption (§ 31-19-2-1). Married spouses get marital presumption under § 31-14-7-1; unmarried/same-sex parents face gaps without orders.
- Risks: NI unprotected. Informal AI without physician + strong writing is highly vulnerable. Agreements that are informal, incomplete, or silent as to later children can fail (M.F. second child). Agency support cases can force the issue even when parties once agreed. Cross-state moves invoke UIFSA.
- Consult: Contact the Indiana State Bar Association's Lawyer Referral Service for family law experts: Find a Lawyer (317-269-2000).