Informal Sperm Donation in Wisconsin

Informal Sperm Donation in Wisconsin

Legal Framework and Considerations

Wisconsin’s legal framework for informal sperm donation, including at-home artificial insemination (AI), is governed by Wis. Stat. § 891.40, a statute rooted in the 1973 Uniform Parentage Act (UPA). This law provides clear protections for donors and establishes parentage only when AI is supervised by a licensed physician and involves a married couple with consent. Outside this narrow scope, Wisconsin law offers no explicit guidance, leaving informal donation in a legal gray area. Case law, such as In re Paternity of D.A.A.P. (2005), reinforces the physician requirement and highlights risks for informal donors.

Key Provisions:

• Assisted Reproduction and Donor Status:
  • Wis. Stat. § 891.40(1) states: "Whenever a married woman is artificially inseminated with semen donated by a man not her husband under the supervision of a physician licensed to practice medicine in this state and her husband has consented in writing to the artificial insemination, the husband is deemed to be the natural father of any child conceived."
  • Wis. Stat. § 891.40(2) adds: "A donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor’s wife is not considered the natural father of any child conceived and has no parental rights or responsibilities toward the child."
  • These provisions explicitly tie donor non-paternity and husband paternity to physician supervision, offering no statutory protection for informal AI or donors outside this context.
• Donor Paternity in Informal Contexts:
  • For at-home AI or donation without a physician, Wisconsin law is silent. Under Wis. Stat. § 767.805, parentage may be established by biology, adoption, or judicial order, meaning an informal donor could be deemed the legal father based on genetic ties unless intent is clearly documented and upheld.
  • A pre-conception written agreement stating the donor relinquishes rights and the recipient assumes sole parentage may persuade courts, but its enforceability is uncertain without physician involvement, as case law suggests.
• Legal Parentage:
  • For married couples, § 891.40(1) secures the husband’s paternity with physician-supervised AI and consent. Unmarried recipients, same-sex couples, or those using at-home AI lack similar statutory provisions, requiring adoption or a court order for non-biological parentage (Wis. Stat. § 767.803).
  • Wisconsin’s adoption of the 1973 UPA (via § 891.40) predates modern assisted reproduction laws, limiting its scope to traditional marital scenarios.
• Case Law and Precedents:
  • In re Paternity of D.A.A.P. (2005 WI App 225, 287 Wis. 2d 814): A man who donated sperm informally to a woman (not his wife) sought paternity after the child’s birth. The court ruled he was the legal father because the donation was not provided to a licensed physician under § 891.40(2), affirming that physician involvement is critical to terminate donor paternity. The mother’s intent to raise the child alone did not override biology without statutory protection.
  • This case aligns with other 1973 UPA states (e.g., Kansas’s Marotta v. Kansas DCF, 2014), underscoring that informal donors risk paternity claims and child support obligations without physician mediation.
• Practical Considerations:
  • At-home AI is practiced in Wisconsin but legally risky due to the physician requirement in § 891.40. Donors face potential paternity claims, and recipients may struggle to establish sole parentage without judicial intervention or adoption.
  • Physician-supervised AI ensures donor non-paternity and husband paternity for married couples, but it’s less accessible and costlier for informal arrangements, particularly in rural areas.
  • Wisconsin courts may favor biological ties in disputes, especially if child support or state benefits are at stake, as seen in D.A.A.P..
• Special Cases:
  • Unmarried recipients or same-sex couples lack protections under § 891.40, requiring adoption for non-biological parentage. Wisconsin’s recognition of same-sex marriage (post-Obergefell, 2015) does not extend to automatic parentage without formal steps.
  • Surrogacy is addressed separately under Wis. Stat. § 69.14(1)(h) for birth registration, but informal sperm donation falls outside this framework.

Wisconsin’s Wis. Stat. § 891.40 provides a clear but narrow framework for physician-supervised AI within marriage, leaving informal sperm donation, including at-home AI, unregulated. The D.A.A.P. case confirms that without physician involvement, donors risk legal paternity, while recipients face challenges securing sole rights. Parties should consider physician-mediated donation or robust legal agreements, with consultation from a Wisconsin family law attorney strongly advised.