TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (WCTV) – The Florida Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that a man who provided his sperm to a couple for at-home artificial insemination didn\u2019t automatically give up his paternal rights. <\/p>\n
The 4-3 decision determined that the previous legislation surrounding artificial insemination only applied to the use of \u201cassisted reproductive technology (ART),\u201d which is defined as \u201cprocreative procedures which involve the laboratory handling of human eggs or preembryos,\u201d according to the ruling. <\/p>\n
The case in question involves Angel Rivera, a Florida man who gave his sperm to Ashley Brito and Jennifer Salas for use with an at-home artificial insemination kit. Brito gave birth to the child and she and Salas were listed as the child\u2019s parents on the birth certificate. <\/p>\n
The couple raised the child together for a little over a year before separating, according to the ruling. Rivera then filed a petition in circuit court asking to be recognized as the child\u2019s legal father. <\/p>\n
The court denied the petition on the grounds that he gave up his paternal rights under section 742.14, which states \u201cthe donor of any egg, sperm or preembryo, other than the commissioning couple or a father who has executed a preplanned adoption agreement under s. 63.213, shall relinquish all maternal or paternal rights and obligations with respect to the donation or the resulting children.\u201d <\/p>\n
In the court\u2019s decision, it said Rivera was a sperm donor who did not meet either of the statute\u2019s two exceptions of relinquishment. Additionally, the court said that the artificial insemination procedure, not being done in a clinical setting, does not change the applicability of the statute. <\/p>\n
The Second District affirmed the circuit court\u2019s ruling.<\/p>\n
More Florida politics:<\/p>\n
The Florida Supreme Court\u2019s majority opinion, written by Justice Jamie Grosshans, argues the statute only applies to assisted reproductive technology, not at-home insemination. <\/p>\n
\u201cBecause ART was not involved\u2026Rivera has not automatically relinquished his paternal rights and obligations to the child at issue,\u201d the majority opinion read.<\/p>\n
While the Supreme Court ruled that Rivera did not automatically give up his paternal rights, it emphasized that his legal rights must be determined by other sources of law addressing paternity. <\/p>\n
This decision did not come without contention as Justice John Couriel penned a dissenting opinion that two other Justices joined, saying it\u2019s clear Rivera was a donor under the current statute.<\/p>\n
The dissent claimed Salas and Brito\u2019s parental rights haven\u2019t come into question in this case. \u201cBut now, the majority authorizes Rivera to become parent number three,\u201d the dissent reads. \u201cThis might be good or bad policy by the Court\u2019s lights, but it is not our law.\u201d <\/p>\n
In the majority opinion, the \u201cthird parent\u201d argument is disputed. \u201cWe do not address, as the dissent implies, whether Rivera is likely to succeed in establishing any legal rights under the statutes governing paternity, especially given that the child in question was born within an intact marriage,\u201d the majority opinion reads.<\/p>\n
Chief Justice Carlos Muniz and Justices Charles Canady and Jorge Labarga joined Grosshans opinion. <\/p>\n
Justices Renatha Francis and Meredith Sasso joined the dissent.<\/p>\n
To keep up with the latest news as it develops, follow WCTV on Facebook<\/a>, Instagram<\/a>, YouTube<\/a>, Nextdoor<\/a> <\/a>and X<\/a> (Twitter<\/a>).<\/p>\n Have a news tip or see an error? Write to us here<\/a>. Please include the article\u2019s headline in your message.<\/p>\n Be the first to see all the biggest headlines by downloading the WCTV News app. Click here<\/a> to get started.<\/p>\n Copyright 2026 WCTV. All rights reserved.<\/p>\n