Informal Sperm Donation in Virginia

Legal Framework and Considerations

Virginia’s legal framework for informal sperm donation, including at-home artificial insemination (AI), is governed by the "Status of Children of Assisted Conception" provisions in Virginia Code Title 20, Chapter 9 (§ 20-156 et seq.). Unlike states adopting modern Uniform Parentage Acts (e.g., Vermont’s 2017 UPA), Virginia requires "intervening medical technology" for a sperm donor to be legally exempt from parenthood, a strict standard clarified by the landmark case *Bruce v. Boardwine* (2011). This unique requirement creates a clear distinction between clinical and informal AI, significantly impacting donor and recipient rights.

Key Provisions:

• Definition of Assisted Conception:
  • Va. Code § 20-156 defines "assisted conception" as: "a pregnancy resulting from any intervening medical technology, whether in vivo or in vitro, which completely or partially replaces sexual intercourse as the means of conception. Such intervening technology includes, but is not limited to, artificial insemination by donor… and in vitro fertilization."
  • This definition explicitly ties donor non-paternity to medical intervention, excluding informal methods like at-home AI with non-medical tools.
• Sperm Donor Status:
  • Va. Code § 20-158(A)(3) states: "A donor is not the parent of a child conceived through assisted conception, unless the donor is the husband of the gestational mother."
  • This protection applies only when conception meets the § 20-156 definition, requiring medical technology, leaving informal donors vulnerable to paternity claims.
• Legal Parentage:
  • Va. Code § 20-158(A)(1) establishes: "The gestational mother is the child’s mother," and § 20-158(A)(2) adds: "If the gestational mother is married, her husband is the child’s father," with consent implied unless contested.
  • For unmarried recipients or informal AI, parentage defaults to biology under Va. Code § 20-49.1, requiring adoption (Va. Code § 63.2-1200 et seq.) for non-biological parents.
• Case Law: Bruce v. Boardwine (2011):
  • Background: In Bruce v. Boardwine, Joyce Bruce used a turkey baster to inseminate herself with sperm from Robert Boardwine, a friend, believing this exempted him from parental rights due to no sexual intercourse. Boardwine later sought paternity.
  • Decision: The Virginia Court of Appeals (54 Va. App. 81, 2011) ruled that a turkey baster did not constitute "intervening medical technology" under § 20-156. The court stated: "The plain meaning of the term ‘medical technology’ does not encompass a kitchen implement such as a turkey baster." Thus, Boardwine was deemed the legal father with rights and responsibilities.
  • Impact: This precedent clarifies that informal AI methods fall outside "assisted conception," exposing donors to paternity unless medical technology is used.
• Legal Implications:
  • The medical technology requirement means informal donors risk being recognized as legal parents, with rights (e.g., custody) and duties (e.g., child support), as seen in *Bruce v. Boardwine*.
  • Virginia’s framework contrasts with intent-based states (e.g., Washington), prioritizing procedural formality over donor-recipient agreements in informal contexts.
• Practical Considerations:
  • At-home AI without medical technology is legally precarious in Virginia. Donors face paternity risks, and recipients may struggle to exclude donors from parentage absent clinical intervention.
  • Physician-supervised AI ensures donor non-paternity under § 20-158, but costs and access (especially in rural Virginia) may deter informal parties.
  • Virginia’s conservative legal approach, reinforced by *Bruce*, suggests courts will favor biology over intent in disputes, particularly if child welfare or support is at stake.
• Special Cases:
  • Unmarried recipients or same-sex couples using informal AI lack statutory protections beyond adoption (Va. Code § 63.2-1201). Post-Obergefell (2015) marriage equality applies, but § 20-158 limits AI parentage to married couples with medical technology.
  • Surrogacy is regulated under Va. Code § 20-159 et seq., requiring court approval, but informal sperm donation falls outside this framework.

Recommendations:

• Medical Supervision: Use physician-supervised AI or recognized medical technology (e.g., syringes from a fertility clinic) to qualify as "assisted conception" and exempt donors from paternity.
• Written Agreements: Draft a pre-conception agreement clarifying donor non-parental intent, though enforceability is limited without medical technology per *Bruce v. Boardwine*.
• Legal Consultation: Consult a Virginia family law attorney specializing in reproductive rights to navigate the strict medical requirement and ensure compliance.

Virginia’s Va. Code § 20-158 ties donor non-paternity to "intervening medical technology," a unique and restrictive standard upheld by *Bruce v. Boardwine*. This excludes informal AI from statutory protection, leaving donors and recipients reliant on clinical methods or judicial discretion. Legal clarity requires medical supervision and professional advice, with ongoing vigilance as laws or interpretations may evolve.

Statutory and Case Law Resources:

• Virginia Code - Title 20, Chapter 9: Status of Children of Assisted Conception
• Bruce v. Boardwine - Virginia Court of Appeals Opinion (2011)