In the Interest of K.M.H.
Supreme Court of Kansas
169 P.3d 1025 (2007)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
S.H., an unmarried woman wanted to become pregnant through artificial insemination (AI). D.M., an unmarried male friend of S.H., agreed to be the sperm donor. There was no formal written contract between the parties regarding the role D.M. would play, if any, with the child. As a result of the artificial insemination process, which took place in Missouri, S.H. became pregnant and gave birth to twin daughters. Thereafter, S.H. and D.M. had a falling out and D.M. claimed he had an oral agreement with S.H. to act as the twins’ father. S.H. filed a consolidated child in need of care (CINC) action. D.M. filed an action to determine that he was the genetic father of the twins and had paternal rights. The district court granted S.H.’s motion to dismiss holding that the Kansas’s artificial insemination statute was controlling and constitutional. The statute stated that unless the donor and the woman agreed otherwise in writing, the donor of semen for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor’s wife does not have any parental rights to the child thereby conceived. D.M. appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Beier, J.)
Dissent (Hill, J.)
Dissent (Caplinger, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.