## Facts

- Kevin N. McIntyre voluntarily provided his semen to Linden Crouch with her knowledge, and Crouch inseminated herself without physician supervision.
- Both McIntyre and Crouch were unmarried, and the child was conceived from the insemination.
- McIntyre alleged an agreement made before donation that he would remain active in the child’s life, participate in major decisions, and receive specified visitation.
- McIntyre alleged he was ready, willing, and able to assume full parental obligations, including support and pregnancy-related expenses.
- Crouch denied any agreement and disputed McIntyre’s claimed willingness and ability to assume parental responsibilities.
- In cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court ruled that ORS 109.239 barred McIntyre, as an unmarried semen donor, from obtaining parental rights and that the statute was constitutional as applied.

## Issues

1. Whether ORS 109.239 applied to McIntyre despite the insemination occurring without physician involvement, his being a known donor, and the mother being unmarried.
2. Whether applying ORS 109.239 to bar McIntyre from asserting parental rights could violate due process if he proved an agreement to assume parental rights and responsibilities.
3. Whether summary judgment for Crouch was proper given disputes over the alleged agreement and McIntyre’s asserted commitment to parental responsibilities.

## Decision

- The court held ORS 109.239, by its terms, applied to McIntyre as a semen donor used for artificial insemination, notwithstanding lack of physician involvement, his known identity, and the mother’s unmarried status.
- The court reversed the summary judgment for Crouch and remanded because material factual disputes existed regarding the alleged agreement and McIntyre’s intended parental role.
- The court indicated that, if McIntyre proved the alleged agreement and commitment to assume parental responsibilities, an automatic statutory bar could be unconstitutional as applied under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

## Legal Principles

- A statute excluding semen donors from legal fatherhood may apply according to its general terms even when the donor is known, the mother is unmarried, and the insemination is not physician-supervised.
- An unwed biological father may have a protected liberty interest when he has timely undertaken, or committed to undertake, substantial parental responsibilities.
- When constitutional analysis depends on contested facts (e.g., existence of an agreement and willingness/ability to assume parental obligations), summary judgment is improper.

## Conclusion

The court applied Oregon’s semen-donor statute to the asserted donor relationship but required further proceedings because factual disputes about a preconception agreement and the donor’s commitment to parenthood could trigger due process limits on an automatic denial of parental status.


McIntyre v. Crouch, 780 P.2d 239 (Or. Ct. App. 1989)