## Facts

- Lori A. Lamaritata and Danny A. Lucas executed a written agreement for artificial insemination under which Lucas provided semen as a “donor.”
- The agreement stated Lucas would have no parental rights or obligations regarding any resulting child and that neither party would pursue a paternity action to establish such rights or obligations.
- Twin boys were conceived and born as a result of the insemination.
- Lucas later filed a paternity action seeking legal recognition as father and requesting parental rights, including visitation.
- Lamaritata opposed, relying on the donor agreement and Florida’s sperm-donor statute, which treats qualifying sperm donors as relinquishing paternal rights and obligations.
- In an earlier appellate proceeding, the appellate court quashed an order for paternity testing and directed the trial court to determine first whether the sperm-donor statute applied and whether the contract was valid.
- On remand, the parties stipulated to paternity testing and litigated visitation, support, and best-interests issues; testing confirmed Lucas was the biological father.
- The trial court entered a supplemental final judgment granting Lucas defined visitation and related contact and school-access rights while also attempting to deny him other parental rights.
- Lucas argued he should be treated as part of a “commissioning couple” rather than a mere sperm donor.

## Issues

1. Whether Lucas’s legal status was that of a statutory sperm donor (or instead a legal parent or member of a “commissioning couple”) under Florida assisted-reproduction law.
2. Whether the sperm-donor statute and the parties’ agreement barred Lucas from visitation and other parental rights despite biological paternity.
3. Whether the trial court improperly proceeded contrary to the prior appellate mandate by litigating paternity, best interests, visitation, and support before resolving statutory and contractual status.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the supplemental final judgment granting Lucas visitation and related rights.
- The court held Lucas was a sperm donor, not a parent, and therefore had no parental rights or access to the children.
- The court rejected Lucas’s attempt to recharacterize the arrangement as a “commissioning couple” situation.
- The court criticized the parties and trial court for disregarding the earlier mandate and engaging in unnecessary litigation over legally irrelevant issues once donor status controlled.

## Legal Principles

- Under Florida’s sperm-donor statute, a qualifying sperm donor is not a legal parent and has no parental rights or obligations, regardless of biological paternity.
- A written donor agreement disclaiming parental rights and obligations is enforceable when consistent with the statutory scheme and confirms donor (nonparent) status.
- When donor status controls, courts should not reach “best interests,” visitation, support, or other parent-child adjudications because there is no legal parent-child relationship to adjudicate.
- Trial courts must comply with an appellate mandate directing threshold resolution of statutory applicability and contract validity before further proceedings.

## Conclusion

The court held that Lucas’s contribution was legally that of a sperm donor under the statute and the parties’ agreement, not a parent; accordingly, the trial court lacked a basis to award him visitation or related rights and the visitation judgment was reversed.


Lamaritata v. Lucas, 823 So. 2d 316 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2002)