Lamaritata v. Lucas

Danny Lucas (plaintiff) and Lori Lamaritata (defendant) entered into a contract in which Lucas agreed to provide sperm to Lamaritata for the purpose of artificial insemination. The contract referred to Lucas as the “donor” and provided that if childbirth resulted, Lucas would have no parental rights or obligations. The contract further provided that both Lucas and Lamaritata were prohibited from bringing an action to determine any eventual child’s paternity for the purpose of establishing parental rights or obligations. Nevertheless, after Lamaritata gave birth to twin boys, Lucas brought an action in Florida state court seeking a determination of the boys’ paternity and an award of parental rights if Lucas was determined to be the boys’ biological father. Lamaritata argued that Lucas’s action was barred by the parties’ contract, that Lucas was not the boys’ biological father, and that under Florida law, a sperm donor relinquishes all paternal rights and obligations with respect to the donation and any resulting children. The trial court ordered paternity testing, but a state appellate court quashed the order and remanded the case for the trial court to determine the validity of the parties’ contract and whether Florida’s sperm-donor law applied to the matter. The appellate court stated that if the trial court decided that Florida’s sperm-donor law applied, then Lucas would be foreclosed from all parental rights and access to the children, regardless of whether he was determined to be the boys’ biological father. On remand, the parties agreed to allow paternity testing, which established that Lucas was the boys’ biological father. The parties then litigated issues regarding visitation, child support, and the children’s best interests. The trial court issued a judgment granting Lucas visitation rights, telephone calls from the children while they were with Lamaritata, and the right to attend school events and parent-teacher conferences. Lamaritata appealed. On appeal, Lucas contended that he was not a sperm donor and that he and Lamaritata should be considered a “commissioning couple” (i.e., a couple that had conceived a child by assisted reproductive technology using the intended father’s sperm), to which the Florida statute did not apply.