< Back to front page Text size – +

Court: Lawmakers need to tackle sperm donor issues

E-mail|Link|Comments () September 30, 2009 07:36 PM

By John R. Ellement, Globe Staff

The state Appeals Court today asked lawmakers to take on complex legal questions now surfacing about anonymous sperm donors and the children conceived through science.

In a decision issued today, the court refused to become involved in a Suffolk Probate and Family Court case in which the mother of twin daughters Ц known only as Jane Doe -- is demanding that the New England Cryogenic Center Inc. identify a sperm donor known only as D237.

Jane Doe Уseeks disclosure of his identity so that she can institute a paternity and child support claim against him and so that she can obtain medical information that may be useful in treating conditions she claims her daughters have developed,ТТ Appeals Court Judge James McHugh wrote for a three judge panel.

УThe issues the case raises are issues of first impression and potentially, at least, have broad ramifications, indeed, ramifications that cry out for legislative treatment.ТТ

Jane Doe represented herself before the court and could not be reached for comment. The attorney for the NECC did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment. Case files, including a decision by Probate and Family Court Judge John Smoot, are impounded by court order.

But according to McHughТs ruling, D237 sold his sperm between 1992 and 1994 when he was in his 20s and a Boston medical student. D237 signed an agreement vowing not to inquire into the children conceived from his sperm, while NECC promised to keep his identity Уin strictest confidence.ТТ

Joyce Kauffman, the attorney for New England Cryogenic, said she is confident the courts will support the view that anonymous sperm donors cannot be parents.

ССIf an anonymous donor is a parent then there will likely be no more anonymous donors coming forward,ТТ she said. ССWould you donate if you knew that one or more recipients of donor sperm would come forward and go after you in a paternity action?ТТ

Jane Doe purchased the sperm in 1999 and was artificially inseminated in a London hospital and gave birth to twin daughters on Feb. 2, 2001. IN 2005, she asked NECC for D237Тs identify, which they refused to provide. She was evicted from her London home, and moved back to the United States, the court said.

In 2006, Jane Doe sought the donorТs identity so he could be required to pay child support Ц and provide updated genetic information because the twin girls had been diagnosed with Уectodermal dysplasia, from which she claims the twins are suffering and for which genetic information from both parents may be helpful in treating.ТТ

For reasons not made clear in the ruling, McHugh wrote that Jane Doe voluntarily placed the twins in the custody of the state Department of Children and Families. A guardian ad litem has been appointed to investigate the health of the girls and undertake a possible search for a genetic link to D237.

McHugh said the Appeals Court would not address any issue raised by the case because a large number of legal issues remain outstanding Ц including whether or not D237 knows that Jane Doe is trying to get his genetic history.