Informal Sperm Donation in New Jersey

Legal Framework and Considerations

New Jersey’s legal framework for informal sperm donation, including at-home artificial insemination (AI), is governed by N.J. Stat. Ann. Title 9, Chapter 17, specifically [N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:17-44](https://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/nxt/gateway.dll/Statutes%20-%20Master%20Folder/statutes%202/title%209%20-%20children%20juvenile%20and%20domestic%20relations%20courts/Title9Chapter17/9-17-44?vid=Publish:10.1048/Enu), enacted in 1983 and influenced by the 1973 Uniform Parentage Act (UPA). This statute mandates supervision by a licensed medical professional (physician, physician assistant, or advanced practice nurse) to exempt donors from paternity, creating a restrictive framework for informal AI compared to intent-based states like New Mexico. Case law, including *Yates v. Sorrell* (2015), reinforces this rigidity, highlighting significant risks for at-home arrangements as of March 2025.

Key Provisions:

• Definition of Artificial Insemination:
  • While not explicitly defined, [N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:17-44(a)](https://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/nxt/gateway.dll/Statutes%20-%20Master%20Folder/statutes%202/title%209%20-%20children%20juvenile%20and%20domestic%20relations%20courts/Title9Chapter17/9-17-44?vid=Publish:10.1048/Enu) governs "artificial insemination" as a medical procedure requiring supervision by a "licensed physician, physician assistant, or advanced practice nurse." This implies methods like intrauterine insemination but excludes informal AI from protections.
• Donor Status and Paternity:
  • N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:17-44(b) states: "Unless otherwise provided in a written contract executed by the donor and the woman, a man who donates semen to a licensed physician, physician assistant, or advanced practice nurse for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the man’s wife or partner is not the father of a child thereby conceived and has no rights or duties stemming from the conception."
  • Without medical professional supervision, donors are not exempt, risking paternity under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:17-38 (biological parentage).
• Legal Parentage:
  • N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:17-44(a) provides: "If, under the supervision of a licensed physician, physician assistant, or advanced practice nurse and with the consent of her spouse or partner, a woman is inseminated artificially with semen donated by a man not her spouse or partner, the spouse or partner… is treated in law as the parent." Consent must be written, signed, certified by the professional, and filed with the Department of Health, though non-filing doesn’t void parentage.
  • For informal AI, parentage defaults to biology unless adoption (N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:3A-2) establishes otherwise.
• Case Law: Yates v. Sorrell (2015):
  • Citation: Docket No. FM-09-001594-13 (N.J. Super. Ct. Fam. Div., Gloucester Cty., unreported, 2015)
  • Background: An informal sperm donor provided semen directly to a lesbian couple for at-home AI, without physician supervision. He later sought visitation rights.
  • Ruling: The court granted visitation, finding § 9:17-44(b)’s donor exemption inapplicable without medical professional involvement. The donor was deemed a legal parent, highlighting the statute’s strict requirement.
  • Impact: Reinforces that informal AI lacks donor protections, exposing donors to paternity risks.
• Legal Implications:
  • New Jersey’s medical professional mandate aligns it with restrictive states like Ohio (ORC § 3111.90), contrasting with intent-based states like New Mexico.
  • At-home AI without supervision falls outside § 9:17-44 protections, leaving donors liable for parentage per *Yates v. Sorrell*.
• Practical Considerations:
  • At-home AI is legally risky in New Jersey. Donors face paternity and support obligations without medical supervision, while recipients may struggle to exclude donors absent clinical mediation.
  • New Jersey’s dense population (approx. 8.9 million) and urban proximity to medical services contrast with rural reliance on informal methods, yet the law penalizes the latter.
  • The state’s conservative approach, rooted in the 1973 UPA, prioritizes biology over intent in informal contexts, per judicial trends.
• Special Cases:
  • Unmarried recipients or same-sex couples lack AI-specific protections beyond adoption (N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:3A-2). Post-Obergefell (2015) equality applies, but § 9:17-44 limits donor exemptions to supervised cases.
  • Gestational surrogacy is regulated under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:17-60 et seq., per § 9:17-44(c), but informal AI relies on older parentage rules.

Recommendations:

• Written Agreements: Draft a written agreement clarifying donor non-parental intent, though enforceability is limited without medical supervision per § 9:17-44 and *Yates v. Sorrell*.
• Physician Supervision: Use a licensed physician, physician assistant, or advanced practice nurse for AI to ensure § 9:17-44 protections, minimizing paternity risks for donors.

New Jersey’s N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:17-44, reflecting the 1973 UPA, mandates medical professional supervision to exempt donors from paternity, a requirement upheld by *Yates v. Sorrell* (2015). This excludes informal at-home AI from statutory protection, leaving donors and recipients reliant on clinical oversight to avoid legal entanglements in this restrictive framework.

Statutory Resources:

• N.J. Stat. Ann. - Title 9, Chapter 17: Parentage
• N.J. Stat. Ann. - Title 9, Chapter 3A: Adoptions