## Facts

- An unmarried Kansas woman (S.H.) sought to conceive through artificial insemination using sperm from a known donor, an unmarried Kansas man (D.H.).
- The parties reached oral arrangements in Kansas; they executed no written contract addressing donor status or parental rights.
- Artificial insemination occurred at a Missouri clinic. D.H. participated in the first attempt by providing sperm to medical personnel; for a later attempt, he gave sperm to S.H., who delivered it to the Missouri physician. The latter resulted in pregnancy.
- Twins (K.M.H. and K.C.H.) were born and lived in Kansas with S.H.
- After the parties’ relationship deteriorated, S.H. filed a child-in-need-of-care proceeding seeking a determination that D.H. had no parental rights; D.H. filed a paternity action seeking recognition as the legal father.
- The dispute turned on K.S.A. 38-1114(f), which treats a semen donor as not the birth father when semen is provided to a licensed physician for insemination of a woman other than the donor’s wife, unless the donor and the woman agree otherwise in writing.

## Issues

1. Whether Kansas or Missouri law governed a parentage dispute when the parties and children were Kansas residents but insemination occurred in Missouri.
2. Whether K.S.A. 38-1114(f) applied to D.H.’s donation and, if so, whether any writing satisfied the statute’s “agreed to in writing” exception.
3. Whether K.S.A. 38-1114(f) violated equal protection by impermissibly classifying based on gender.
4. Whether K.S.A. 38-1114(f) violated substantive or procedural due process by denying the donor a constitutionally protected parental interest or a meaningful opportunity to assert it.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for S.H.
- Kansas law governed because Kansas had significant contacts: the parties’ residence, the location of their arrangement and exchanged promises, and the children’s birth and residence.
- K.S.A. 38-1114(f) applied because D.H. was a semen donor, the semen was provided to a licensed physician, and insemination involved a woman who was not the donor’s wife.
- No qualifying written agreement existed between D.H. and S.H.; litigation filings did not satisfy the statutory writing requirement.
- The statute was constitutional and did not violate equal protection, substantive due process, or procedural due process.
- As a matter of law, D.H. had no legal parental rights to the twins.

## Legal Principles

- A forum may apply its own law to a dispute consistent with constitutional limits when the forum state has significant contacts such that the choice is not arbitrary or unfair.
- Under K.S.A. 38-1114(f), a semen donor to a licensed physician for insemination of a woman other than the donor’s wife is treated as not the child’s legal father unless the donor and the woman agree in writing to confer paternal status.
- The statutory writing requirement functions as a clear condition for establishing donor parentage in artificial insemination; absent compliance, claimed parental status fails as a matter of law.
- Gender-based classifications are subject to heightened scrutiny and are upheld if they substantially relate to an important governmental objective; statutes defining parentage in assisted reproduction may satisfy this standard.
- Due process does not require recognition of parental rights where the legislature has defined parentage for assisted reproduction and the claimant failed to meet the statutory conditions to obtain legal parent status.

## Conclusion

The court held that Kansas law and K.S.A. 38-1114(f) controlled the parentage dispute, that no written agreement conferred fatherhood on the known sperm donor, and that the statute validly foreclosed his parental rights without violating equal protection or due process.


In re K.M.H., 285 Kan. 53, 169 P.3d 1025 (Kan. 2007)