UPDATES IN MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW

Sperm Donor Liability | A New Trend?

It has not been unusual for gay and lesbian couples to arrange privately for surrogacy or for a donation of sperm from a friend or third party in order for a couple to inseminate one of the lesbian partners so that they can bring children into their family. A recent case involving the latter method of procreation may result in lesbian partners being forced to use clinics approved for A.R.T. rather than an informal gift from a friend or acquaintance.

A Kansas man, William Marotta, donated sperm to a lesbian couple after answering a Craigslist ad placed online by Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner. Bauer and Schreiner were seeking a sperm donor. After exchanging emails and meeting, the three signed an agreement relieving Marotta of any financial or paternal responsibility. The couple accomplished the artificial insemination themselves using a syringe, and Schreiner eventually became pregnant. Late last year, after she and Bauer broke up, because Kansas does not recognise same-sex marriage, Schreiner, who bore the child, was awarded sole custody, Bauer was not liable for  child support, and Schreiner applied for Title IV-D benefits. So the state came after Marotta for child support.

Surrogacy | Mother Who Gives Birth to Twins Held to be their Mother

Just when you think life could not get any stranger . . . along comes another story that no one could have made up. A Houston mother who gave birth to twins in July 2012 was challenged by a male friend who had convinced her to bear the children using his sperm and donor eggs. The twins were born prematurely. While they were hospitalized, the mother, Cindy Close, was sued by her friend. He claimed that since she had no genetic ties to the infants, they belonged to him and she had no parental rights. There was no written surrogacy agreement. Only then did Close realize that her friend was gay and intended to raise the children with his partner.

From New England Medical Journal: Good News on ART

A New England Journal of Medicine study reports today that live-birth rates after assisted reproductive technology can approach those seen after natural conception. Using registry data, researchers estimated cumulative live-birth rates for almost 250,000 women undergoing more than 470,000 assisted reproductive cycles from 2004 through 2009.

• The researchers found

ERISA-based Plan not Required to Pay Surrogate's Birth-related Expenses

Is an ERISA-based employee medical benefit plan required to pay birth-related hospital expenses incurred by a surrogate mother? In an unpublished Michigan appellate decision, the answer is NO.

Facts of the case: Lehr (“surrogate mother”) became pregnant with triplets after being implanted with embryos created by third parties. Spectrum Health Hospital (Spectrum) treated the surrogate mother during her pregnancy. Third-party defendant NGS American, Inc. (NGS), the administrator of the surrogate mother’s employee medical benefit plan, denied coverage for Spectrum’s services.

Infertile Wife Held Not Parent of Husband's Surrogate Child

A New Jersey appeals court held recently in a ruling that harkens the landmark Baby M case that there is no constitutional or legal basis for recognizing an infertile wife as the mother of her husband's child born to a surrogate.  The court said it did not deny the "intrinsic societal worth, emotional appeal, and compelling logic" of granting parenthood to the infertile wife, but said adoption remains the means chosen by the Legislature to create that status. 

"Indeed, nothing in our Constitution or law provides that an adult - male or female - with no biological or gestational connection to a child has a fundamental right to create parentage by the most expeditious or convenient method possible," the court held.  The panel said its ruling, in Matter of the Parentage of a Child by T.J.S. and A.L.S., A-4784-09, flows directly from In re Baby M., 109 N.J. 396 (1988), which voided surrogacy-for-hire contracts and rejected an equal protection challenge to the New Jersey Parentage Act provision in question.