## Facts

- Mary K., an unmarried woman, and her female partner planned to have a child and arranged for their male friend, Jhordan C., to provide semen for artificial insemination.
- The insemination occurred privately at home without the supervision of a licensed physician and without use of a sperm bank.
- Mary became pregnant using Jhordan’s semen and gave birth to a son.
- The parties had discussions before conception about Jhordan’s intended role, but evidence about any agreement limiting his parental status was conflicting.
- After the birth, Jhordan had some contact with the child; later, Mary limited or attempted to limit his access.
- Jhordan filed an action to establish paternity and obtain visitation.
- The trial court treated Jhordan as a donor without parental rights and denied the relief he sought.
- Jhordan appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a man who provides semen for the artificial insemination of an unmarried woman, performed privately without physician supervision, may be adjudicated the child’s natural father and seek parental rights.
2. Whether California’s statutory donor nonpaternity rule for artificial insemination applies when the statutory conditions (including physician supervision and the marital context addressed by the statute) are not met.
3. Whether an informal understanding that the provider would not be a “father” can defeat legal parentage otherwise established under applicable parentage law.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of Jhordan’s parental status.
- The court held the statutory donor nonpaternity provision was inapplicable because the insemination was not performed under physician supervision and the statutory conditions were not satisfied.
- Because the statutory exception did not apply, general parentage principles governed, permitting Jhordan to be adjudicated the child’s natural father and to seek visitation.
- The court held that any private understanding purporting to eliminate Jhordan’s legal parentage could not extend the statute beyond its terms or otherwise negate parentage established under governing law.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with recognizing Jhordan’s standing as the child’s father, including consideration of appropriate orders under the child’s best interests.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory donor nonpaternity rules for artificial insemination operate as limited exceptions to ordinary biological parentage and apply only when their explicit conditions are satisfied.
- When the statutory conditions for donor nonpaternity (including physician supervision as required by the statute) are not met, the biological progenitor may be adjudicated the natural father under general parentage law.
- Private arrangements about family roles cannot displace statutory parentage rules or the public and child-centered interests implicated by legal parentage (including potential rights to support and other incidents of the parent-child relationship).
- Recognition of a biological father’s legal status establishes standing to seek parental orders; the content of orders (such as visitation) remains subject to the child’s best interests on remand.

## Conclusion

The court held that, because the insemination occurred outside the conditions required for statutory donor nonpaternity, the semen provider remained subject to ordinary parentage law and could be adjudicated the child’s natural father with standing to seek visitation, notwithstanding the parties’ informal expectations.


Jhordan C. v. Mary K., 179 Cal. App. 3d 386, 224 Cal. Rptr. 530 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)