Court Opinion

ID: 9525692
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:06:25.986367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:16:36.590908
License: Public Domain

CHEZEM, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in the result reached in Judge Miller’s opinion. In this state there exists no statutory protection9 against a paternity action for a man who donates his sperm for purposes of insemination, whether the donation be made through a sperm bank, physician, or directly to the ultimate recipient. The trial court correctly established paternity.
I believe, however, that the contract should be treated as an assumption by Todd of Straub’s obligation of support. Todd agreed to hold Straub harmless for his support obligation to B.M.T. Straub’s support obligation to B.M.T. cannot be enforced against him unless Todd herself is without the means to pay that obligation.
The trial court retains jurisdiction for a determination of Todd’s ability to provide support based on the Indiana Child Support Guidelines, and for determinations of custody and visitation.

. The Uniform Parentage Act was approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1973. Section 5(b) of the Uniform Parentage Act provides "The donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a married woman other than the donor’s wife is treated in law as if he were not the natural father of a child thereby conceived.” Eighteen states (Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wyoming) have adopted the Act.