Are oral contracts for a sperm donor enforceable?

In the case of Janssen v. Alicea, 30 So.3d 680 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2010), the Court states that a judge has to decide whether the father was a "sperm donor" with no rights or a parent with all rights.

            The Father and the Mother, who had been close friends, agreed to have a child through artificial insemination. The Father donated the sperm used for the artificial insemination and the Mother gave birth to the child. The child's birth certificate listed the names of both the Mother and the Father. Two years later, the Mother moved to California with the child and the Father filed an action for paternity. The Father alleged that he and mother together planned for and purposely conceived the child intending that they both would act as the child's parents. The Father also alleged that he played an active role during the pregnancy and lifetime of the child (then, two years). The Mother alleged that Father was simply a sperm donor and a part of the child's life at her discretion. The Mother asserted that section 742.14, Florida Statutes (2008) barred the action because the Father was simply a sperm donor. The Father argued that the parties were a commissioning couple and not subject to that statute. The trial court entered a summary judgment for the Mother. The District Court held:

            1. "Section 742.14 provides: 'The donor of any egg, sperm, or pre-embryo, other than the commissioning couple or a father who has executed a preplanned adoption agreement . . . , shall relinquish all maternal or paternal rights and obligations with respect to the donation of the resulting children.' "

2. "Section 742.13, Florida Statutes (2008), defines 'a commissioning couple' as 'the intended mother and father of a child who will be conceived by means of assisted reproductive technology using the eggs or sperm of at least one of the intended parties.'"

3. "Here, the parties do not have a written contract governing their relationship. In fact, the father alleged an oral agreement to co-parent the child."

4. "We find that it is possible for the court to conclude that the parties are a commissioning couple. However, there are genuine issues of material fact that cannot be determined on summary judgment. Accordingly, we reverse final summary judgment, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."