Summary: A couple of years ago, this case was discussed here. A sperm-donor was ordered to pay child support for a child of a lesbian couple he sired. He has successfully appealed that order.

Body: Background - A Kentucky man answered a Craigslist ad for a sperm-donor for a lesbian couple looking to have a child. He was paid $50 a pop for his 'service'. Some time after the child was born, the couple separated, and the biological mother sought state support. The state went after the bio-dad for support, and won as the law was (seemingly) cut-and-dried.

The man appealed, and won.

While I'm not a lawyer, there are a few interesting legal decisions that I find fascinating about this case.

First, it was the state who went after him, not the mother. While not interesting in and of itself, it seems to have had an impact on the Appeal Judge's decision.

Second, the Judge stated in his opinion that the laws were outdated and were not keeping up with current social norms. He specifically pointed out that had the lesbian couple been a hetro couple, the state would never have gone after the bio-dad in the first place.

Third, an independent commission (in 2000 and 2002) recommended that the states eliminate the 'performed by a physician' requirement years before this case. Eleven states adopted the recommendations. Kentucky was not one of them.

Fourth, the Judge noted that the lesbian couple were still co-parenting the child - thus the non-bio-mother's presumption of parenthood was superior to the donor's.

Lessons Learned: This case is an interesting study for how laws are interpreted as social norms move. When it was written, gay marriage was not legal. In this case, the appeal worked because the bio-dad successfully argued that the original judge erred because he did not take into account another law about presumption of parenthood. I imagine the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage contributed as well.