Florida Supreme Court’s DIY Insemination Ruling Exposes a Legal Gap — and Puts Families on Notice

By Michael Phillips | Father & Co. | FLBayNews

Florida’s highest court just handed the state a message it can’t afford to ignore: the law that neatly governs clinic-based assisted reproduction does not clearly cover the growing world of informal, at-home insemination.

In a 4–3 decision issued December 30, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a man who provided sperm for an at-home insemination did not automatically surrender his potential parental rights under Florida’s “donor relinquishment” statute, Section 742.14.

That does not mean he is now a legal father. It means he gets to try to prove it in court — under Florida’s general paternity rules — because the statutory shortcut that wipes out donor rights applies only in the narrower world the legislature actually defined: laboratory-handled assisted reproductive technology (ART).

What happened

The case arose after a same-sex couple, Ashley Brito and Jennifer Salas, used an at-home insemination kit with sperm provided by Angel Giovanni Rivera, an acquaintance. Brito became pregnant, the couple later married, and the child was born with Brito and Salas listed as parents. After the relationship ended, Rivera filed in 2021 seeking to be recognized as the child’s legal father and to obtain time-sharing and related rights and obligations.

Lower courts ruled against Rivera by treating him as a “donor” whose rights were extinguished by Section 742.14. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, quashed the Second District’s decision, and approved the outcome of a conflicting Fifth District decision that had read the statute narrowly in a similar DIY scenario.

The court’s reasoning — and why it matters

The majority, in an opinion by Justice Jaime Grosshans, focused on the structure of the statute and the legislature’s definitions. Florida law defines “assisted reproductive technology” as procedures involving “laboratory handling” of eggs or preembryos — classic clinic-based IVF territory — and ties key concepts like “commissioning couple” to that ART framework. The majority concluded the relinquishment rule in Section 742.14 belongs inside that same ART scheme, not informal at-home insemination.

The practical effect is straightforward: DIY insemination is now clearly riskier, legally, than clinic-based ART — not because the court “dislikes” it, but because Florida’s statute was written for a different set of facts.

From a center-right perspective, the decision is a mixed but clarifying outcome:

• A win for textual limits and judicial restraint: the court refused to stretch a statute beyond the definitions and structure the legislature adopted, and pointed any policy fix back to lawmakers.
• A warning shot for “handshake family law”: if adults create a child with no clinic, no contract, and no adoption or parentage paperwork, they should not be surprised when a courtroom becomes the fallback decision-maker.

The dissent’s warning: “parent number three”

Justice John Couriel’s dissent argued the statute should apply broadly to any “donor” in ordinary English, not just ART-based arrangements, and cautioned that the majority’s approach invites an “odd result”: a child potentially having three legal parents (the biological mother, her spouse, and the biological father/donor) — a policy choice the legislature never clearly made.

That concern will resonate with many Floridians who believe family law should prioritize stability and clarity for children over adult improvisation — especially when relationships fracture.

What the ruling does not do

It’s important not to oversell this decision.

• It does not declare Rivera the father.
• It does not guarantee custody or time-sharing.
• It simply allows Rivera’s claim to proceed under general paternity law, where the court will weigh the evidence and — crucially — the child’s best interests.

The real takeaway: Florida’s statute is behind the culture

DIY insemination is increasingly common for reasons that aren’t ideological: cost, privacy, convenience, and distrust of institutional systems. But Florida’s legal framework still assumes a world where reproductive arrangements either happen inside a clinic’s paperwork pipeline or within traditional marital presumptions.

The result is a legal “gray zone” that helps no one:

• Mothers and spouses face uncertainty about whether family stability can be challenged years later.
• Donors face uncertainty about whether biology will later become obligation — including child support — even if the original intent was informal and limited.
• Children face the worst uncertainty of all: prolonged litigation over identity, attachment, and household structure.

What lawmakers should do next

If the legislature wants predictable outcomes, it should write them — clearly — instead of leaving Florida families to learn the rules through expensive litigation.

A responsible legislative fix would aim for three goals:

1. Clarity: Define when a sperm provider is a “donor” versus an intended parent in non-clinic settings.
2. Paper-first incentives: Require a simple, standardized written agreement (with basic safeguards) for non-clinic insemination arrangements to control parentage outcomes.
3. Child-centered guardrails: Ensure courts retain discretion to prevent gamesmanship and protect children from being treated like legal leverage when adult relationships collapse.

Until that happens, the message to Floridians is blunt: if you’re building a family outside the clinic system, get the paperwork before the pregnancy, not after the breakup.

Because Florida courts will fill any vacuum the legislature leaves behind — and the bill, financial and emotional, will land on the child first.

---

Support Independent Journalism

Florida Bay News is part of the Bay News Media Network — a growing group of independent, reader-supported newsrooms covering government accountability, courts, public safety, and institutional failures across the country.

Support independent journalism that isn’t funded by political parties, corporations, or government agencies
Submit tips or documents securely — if you see something wrong, we want to know

Independent reporting only works when readers stay engaged. Your attention, tips, and support help keep these stories alive.