## Facts

- Ivonne V. Ferguson and Joel L. McKiernan, former romantic partners, agreed that McKiernan would provide sperm for an in-vitro fertilization (IVF) procedure conducted in a clinical, non-sexual setting.
- The parties’ preconception oral agreement was designed to mirror anonymous donation: McKiernan would have no parental role or rights, and Ferguson would not seek support, financial or otherwise.
- McKiernan provided sperm, Ferguson underwent IVF, and twins were born in August 1994.
- Ferguson listed her husband as the father on the birth certificates; McKiernan had minimal contact with the children for several years.
- About five years after the birth, Ferguson sought child support from McKiernan, asserting the agreement was void as against public policy because it waived the children’s right to support.

## Issues

1. Whether public policy permits enforcing a preconception agreement in a clinical IVF sperm-donation arrangement that disclaims the donor’s parental rights and child support obligations.
2. Whether a known sperm donor in a private, clinically performed IVF donation may be treated like an anonymous donor and thus not be liable for child support.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court and vacated the child support order.
- The court held the parties’ preconception agreement was enforceable on these facts, and McKiernan was not liable for child support.
- The court distinguished ordinary parental support waivers from a preconception reproductive arrangement conditioned on the donor’s non-parental status.
- The court limited its holding to the particular context presented: a clinical, non-sexual donation made before conception, with mutual intent that the donor would have no parental role.

## Legal Principles

- Public policy favoring child support from parents does not automatically void a preconception sperm-donor agreement when conception occurs only on the condition that the donor will have no parental rights or obligations.
- In a clinical IVF donation designed to function like anonymous sperm donation, a known donor’s mere identifiability does not, by itself, justify imposing child support obligations contrary to the parties’ preconception agreement.
- Courts may consider the broader policy consequences of imposing support on donors in assisted reproduction, including the risk of deterring sperm donation and reducing access to assisted reproductive methods.
- The “best interests of the child” analysis used in disputes between established parents is not a direct fit for determining enforceability of a preconception donor agreement in assisted reproduction.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a preconception IVF sperm-donor agreement that disclaimed parental status and support obligations, holding that, in this limited clinical donation setting, public policy did not require imposing child support on the donor and the support order was vacated.


Ferguson v. McKiernan, 940 A.2d 1236 (Pa. 2007)