Cryopreservation of Semen Does Not Make the Donor a Parent.

Burns v. Burns, 2012 UT 71, Utah Supreme Court, October 12, 2012

Husband was diagnosed with cancer and preserved his semen prior to chemotherapy.  Husband died and Wife used the sperm for artificial insemination.  Wife gave birth and applied for social security benefits for the child and listed deceased-husband as the father.  Social security denied Mother’s claims.  Mother requested that the Federal District Court review the administrative to the federal district court.  The Federal Court sent the question of law to the Utah Supreme Court to determine if the donor could be a Father under Utah law.

The Supreme Court found that in order to be a parent of a child who resulted from cryopreserved semen or embryo, the donor must agree in a record and consent to be considered the parent of said -child.  (See U.C.A. 78B-15-707). Husband never signed an agreement consenting to being the parent of a child conceived posthumously and as such is not considered a parent.

Full opinion available at: http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Burns1271101212.pdf

DCFS Guidelines Are Neither Administrative Rules Nor Statute

K.Y. v. DCFS, (Utah Court of Appeals November 26, 2010).

Juvenile Court found K.Y., a teacher, neglected the student according to DCFS Guidelines’ definition of emotional maltreatment.  The teacher taped the student’s wrists to her desk with a six inch piece of scotch tape for two minutes as a method of discipline.

 

The Guidelines were neither promulgated as rules nor codified in statute and as such were neither rules nor statute and do not have the force of law.  The Juvenile Court based its entire ruling on only the DCFS guidelines, and never considered the statutory definitions of abuse or neglect.

 

The Court of Appeals found that K.Y.’s actions did not meet the statutory definition of neglect.  Additionally, there was insufficient evidence for any finding of abuse, and the JV court did not evaluate whether the teacher’s actions were a form of reasonable discipline.

In short, the JV Court did not use the correct analysis.  Under the correct analysis, K.Y.’s actions were neither neglect nor abuse.  The ruling of the JV court is Reversed.

Full Decision available at  http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/JV_ky112610.pdf