1 The Law, in Speeches 17 (1913).

2 This Note deliberately uses the term “alternative insemination” instead of “artificial insemination” for two reasons. First, “[a]rtificial insemination [is not] artificial from the point of view of reproduction … . “ Hayden Curry & Denis Clifford, a Legal Guide For Lesbian and Gay Couples 7:9 (Robin Leonard ed., 5th ed., 1990). In addition, “alternative” has a more positive connotation than “artificial.” “Artificial” as used in conjunction with “insemination” is the “introduction of semen into the uterus or oviduct by other than natural means.” Webster's Ninth New COllegiate Dictionary 106 (1983) (emphasis added). In contrast, “alternative” means “offering or expressing a choice.” Id. at 78. As used in this Note, “alternative insemination” means the introduction of semen into a woman's vagina, cervical canal, or uterus through the use of instruments or other means as an alternative to sexual intercourse. This seemingly minor distinction provides the foundation for a paradigm that creates legal consequences for the woman using AI, the semen donor, the child, and the woman's partner, if she has one.

3 When this Note refers to “the parties” to AI, it treats the woman and her intended coparent if she has one, as one party, and the donor as another party.

4 Martha, Minow, Redefining Families: Who's In and Who's Out?, 62 U. Colo. L. Rev. 269, 271 (1991)Google Scholar.

5 This Note focuses on protecting the rights and familial expectations of each woman using AI because a survey of state cases has not uncovered any cases where an unmarried woman who conceived through AI alleged paternal obligations against the donor that were inconsistent with his expectations.

6 The arguments in this Note may also apply to surrogacy arrangements. In fact, in May, 1993, to resolve a dispute between biological parents and a surrogate over legal parentage, the California Supreme Court held that the parties’ intent was the controlling factor in deciding the case. Johnson v. Calvert, 851 P.2d 776, 782 (Cal.), cert, denied, 114 S. Ct. 206 (1993). This Note does not attempt to address surrogacy, however, because it is fundamentally different from AI in at least three ways. First, the AI donor donates genetic material only. A “surrogate mother” donates not only her genetic material, but the use of her body as well. BLACK's Law Dictionary 1445 (6th ed. 1990) (defining “surrogate mother“). The surrogate may also be a “gestational surrogate,” contributing no genetic material to the child, but gestating a zygote created from the egg and sperm of others. See 1993 Fla. Laws ch. 237. Second, the AI donor can, and often does, donate anonymously. This is not the case with surrogacy. Finally, the sperm that the AI donor surrenders to the donee is not comparable to the surrogate mother's surrender of an infant.

7 See infra note 29 and accompanying text.

8 Ala. Code § 26-17-21 (1992); Alaska Stat. § 25.20.045 (1991); Ark. Code Ann. § 9-10- 202 (Michie 1993); Cal. Civ. Code § 7005 (West 1983); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 19-4-106 (West 1986 & Supp. 1993); Idaho Code § 39-5402 (1993); I I I . Ann. Stat. ch. 750, para. 40 (Smith- Hurd 1993); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 257.56 (West 1992); Mo. Ann. Stat. § 193.085 (Vernon Supp. 1993); Mont. Code Ann. § 40-6-106 (1993); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 126.061 (1991); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:17-44 (West 1993); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 40-11-6 (Michie 1989); N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 73 (Consol. 1979); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3111.32 (Anderson 1989); OR. Rev. Stat. § 109.239 (1991); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.26.050 (West 1986); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 891.40 (West Supp. 1993); Wyo. Stat. § 14-2-103 (1986).

9 See infra notes 10-16 and accompanying text.

10 Judith Gaines, A Scandal of Artificial Insemination, N.Y. Times, Oct. 7, 1990, § 6, at 23.

11 See 50% Success Rate in $1 Billion Infertility Fight, N.Y. Times, May 18, 1988, at A25. One example of the result of this lack of regulation is the criminal justice system's treatment of a physician who may have fathered more than 70 children by using his own semen for inseminating his patients. Because his practice violated no AI regulations, he was tried and convicted of fraud and perjury charges. Robert F. Howe, Fertility Doctor Convicted in Bogus-Pregnancy Scheme, Boston Globe, Mar. 5, 1992, at 1.

12 Note, Reproductive Technology and the Procreation Rights of the Unmarried, 98 Harv. L. Rev. 669, 669 & n.l. (1985).

13 See Carol A. Donovan, The Uniform Parentage Act and Nonmarital Motherhood-by-Choice, 11 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 193, 195 (1982-83).

14 See Office of Technology Assessment, Artificial Insemination Practice in the United States 8 (1987) [hereinafter Ota Survey].

15 See id. at 23.

16 See id. Support services for lesbians considering AI are increasing. Although no one knows how many lesbian women are having babies, experts cite a number of indications of a [lesbian baby] boom. Hundreds of women are attending a growing number of workshops for lesbians thinking of having children. Informal networks have sprung up, enabling lesbians to find sperm donors. Lawyers are formulating custody agreements to try to insure legal rights for lesbian mothers, their female partners and the fathers of their children. Support groups and social organizations are sponsoring picnics, parties and other events to keep lesbians with children from feeling isolated.

Gina Kolata, Lesbian Partners Find the Means to Be Parents, N.Y. Times, Jan. 30, 1989, at A13.

17 Self-insemination without the involvement of a physician is a simple procedure. Jhordan C v. Mary K., 224 Cal. Rptr. 530, 535 (Ct. App. 1986) (“It is true that nothing inherent in artificial insemination requires the involvement of a physician. Artificial insemination is, as demonstrated here, a simple procedure easily performed by a woman in her own home.“); In re R.C., 775 P.2d 27, 36 (Colo. 1989) (Kirshbaum, J., specially concurring) (noting that “the act of artificial insemination itself does not require medical expertise“). See Cheri Pies, Considering Parenthood: a Workbook for Lesbians 167 (1985) for an example of instructions on how to self-inseminate at home.

18 Ota Survey, supra note 14, at 27.

19 Id.

20 Id.

21 For example, the Sperm Bank of Northern California is “a feminist-run facility known as one of the minority of sperm banks in the United States committed to providing artificial insemination services to any healthy woman or couple regardless of marital status, sexual preference, age, race, or religion. The most notable fact about the Sperm Bank of Northern California is its commitment to providing services to single and lesbian women.” Id. at 65. This facility reports that approximately 40 percent of its clients identify themselves as lesbians. Kolata, supra note 16.

22 Jean Latz Griffin, The Gay Baby Boom: Homosexual Couples Challenge Traditions As They Create New Families, Chi. Trib., Sept. 3, 1992, § 5, at 1.

23 Designing Women: Maybe Baby (CBS television broadcast, Feb. 11, 1991) (Mary Jo, a single woman, tries to persuade an ex-boyfriend to be a sperm donor so she can conceive via AI); Designing Women: Picking a Winner (CBS television broadcast, Oct. 14, 1991) (Mary Jo visited a sperm bank and conceived using AI, but miscarried); Empty Nest: Food For Thought (NBC television broadcast, Oct. 12, 1991) (Barbara considered becoming a single mother using AI); Golden Girls (NBC television broadcast) (Blanche's daughter, Rebecca, successfully used AI to become a single mother); Murphy Brown: Baby Love (CBS television broadcast, Dec. 12, 1988) (before the now infamous birth of Murphy's son, Murphy and Frank considered conceiving using AI and then coparenting the child); Roc (FOX television broadcast, Oct. 10, 1992) (characters considered using AI to conceive).

24 2 0/20: Women Who Love Women (ABC television broadcast, Oct. 23, 1992).

25 Made in America (Warner Brothers 1993) (the story of a young woman who discovers she was conceived through AI and the resulting comical turmoil for her mother and the man whom the girl identifies as her donor father); Look Who's Talking (Tri-Star Pictures 1987) (mother said she conceived through AI when she did not want to tell people who the father of her baby was).

26 See infra notes 57-71, 74-79, 89-94 and accompanying text.

27 Unif. Parentage Act § 5, 9B U.L.A. 301 (West 1987 & Supp. 1993) [hereinafter UPA] and Unif. Status of Children of Assisted Conception Act, 9B U.L.A. 135 (Supp. 1988) [hereinafter Uscaca].

28 Ala. Code § 26-17-21 (1992); Alaska Stat. § 25.20.045 (1991); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-2451 (1982 & Supp. 1993); Ark. Code. Ann. §§ 9-10-201 to 202 (Michie 1993); Cal. Civ. Code § 7005 (West 1983); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 19-4-106 (West 1986 & Supp. 1993); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 45a-774 to 779 (West 1993); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 742.11 (West 1986 & Supp. 1993); Ga. Code Ann. § 19-7-21 (Michie 1991); Idaho Code § 39-5401 to 5408 (1993); Ill. Ann. STAT. ch. 750, para. 40 (Smith-Hurd 1993); Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 23-128 to 130 (1988); Md. Est. & Trusts Code Ann. § 1-206 (1991); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 46, § 4B (West Supp. 1993); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 333.2824(6) (West 1992) and Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 700.111 (West 1980); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 257.56 (West 1992); Mo. Ann. Stat. § 193.085 (Vernon Supp. 1993); Mont. Code Ann. § 40-6-106 (1993); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 126.061 (1991); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 168-B: 1-32 (Supp. 1993); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:17-44 (West 1993); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 40-11-6 (Michie 1989); N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 73 (Consol. 1979); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 49A-1 (Michie 1984 & Supp. 1992); N.D. Cent. Code §§ 14-18-01 to 07 (1981); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 3111.30 to 3111.38 (Anderson 1989); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, §§ 551-55 (West 1987 & Supp. 1994); OR. Rev. Stat. §§ 109.239 to 109.247 (1991); Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-3-306 (1992); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 12.03 (West 1986 & Supp. 1994); Va. Code Ann. §§ 20-156 to 165 (Michie Supp. 1993); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.26.050 (West 1986); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 891.40 (West Supp. 1993); Wyo. Stat. § 14-2-103 (1986).

29 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, and Tennessee. See statutes cited supra note 28.

30 Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. See statutes cited supra note 28.

31 See statutes cited supra note 28. See, e.g., Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 46, § 4B (West Supp. 1990) (“Any child born to a married woman as a result of artificial insemination with the consent of her husband shall be considered the legitimate child of the mother and such husband.“).

32 See, e.g., R.S. v. R.S., 670 P.2d 923, 928 (Kan. App. 1983) (holding that even though the statute required the husband's written consent as a condition precedent to AI, a husband who consents orally “is estopped to deny that he is the father of the child, and he has impliedly agreed to support the child and act as its father“); K.B. v. N.B., 811 S.W.2d 634, 636-39 (Tex. Ct. App. 1991) (holding that a husband who did not provide the statutorily required consent to his wife's insemination may still be financially responsible for the child where the husband ratified the parent- child relationship through his knowledge that the wife was using AI and the husband publicly acknowledged the child).

33 The UPA provides, in relevant part:

UPA § 5, 9B U.L.A. 301 (emphasis added). The effect of the UPA is to legitimate a child conceived by AI by treating the consenting husband as if he were the natural father. The negative implication of section (b) is that even when a married woman's husband did not consent to her use of AI, the donor will not be subject to parental obligations or entitled to parental benefits.

34 See generally Brenda J. Runner, Note, Protecting a Husband's Parental Rights When His Wife Disputes the Presumption of Legitimacy, 28 J. Fam. L. 115 (1989-90).

35 Harry D. Krause, Child Support in America 105 (1981). See, e.g., UPA § 4, 9B U.L.A. 298; Cal. Evid. Code § 621 (West 1966 & Supp. 1993). See also Runner, supra note 34, at 116 (“One of the strongest presumptions in law is that a child born to a married woman is the legitimate child of her husband.“).

36 491 U.S. 110 (1989) (plurality opinion).

37 Id. at 113.

38 Id.

39 Id. at 113-14. The plurality began its opinion with the following statement: “The facts of this case are, we must hope, extraordinary.” Id. at 113. This statement seems to indicate a moral judgment on the part of the Court, which does not bode well for unmarried women who use AI and are contesting donor paternity actions. Given the parental possibilities that current reproductive technologies permit, the Court has not even scratched the surface of the possible “factually extraordinary” parental combinations and permutations. For example, in Johnson v. Calvert, 851 P.2d 776 (Cal.), cert, denied, 114 S. Ct. 206 (1993), a husband and wife provided the genetic material for a child and another woman, a “biological stranger” to the child, gestated the fetus after in vitro fertilization. 851 P.2d at 778. Under California law then, two women had claims as the “natural mother” of the child, one as the biological mother and one as the birth mother. Id. at 781.

40 Michael H.,491 U.S. at 113.

41 Id. at 132.

42 Id. at 129.

43 CM. v. C.C., 377 A.2d 821, 825 (N.J. Super. 1977); see also Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380, 391 (1979) (“We do not question that the best interests of [illegitimate] children often may require their adoption into new families who will give them the stability of a normal, two-parent home.“) (emphasis added).

44 Michael H., 491 U.S. at 118.

45 Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 256-57 (1983).

46 Id. at 261 (citations omitted).

47 Id. at 262.

48 See id.

49 Cm. v. C.C, 377 A.2d 821 (Juv. & Dom. Rel. Ct. 1977).

50 Id.

51 Id. at 822.

52 Id. at 821.

53 Id. at 824.

54 Cm. v. C.C, 377 A.2d 821 (Juv. & Dom. Rel. Ct. 1977). The court imposing a traditional family does not necessarily serve the best interests of the child. See Andrea, Charlow, Awarding Custody: The Best Interests of the Child and Other Fictions, 5 Yale L. & Pol'Y Rev. 267, 269, 273-74 (1987)Google Scholar. Studies show that the greatest detriment to a child's emotional health is parental conflict. Id. at 280.

55 See infra notes 65-79 and accompanying text.

56 See infra notes 80-83, 89-94 and accompanying text.

57 224 Cal. Rptr. 530 (Ct. App. 1986).

58 Id. at 532.

59 Id. at 533.

60 The California statute modifies the UPA, supra note 33, by eliminating the word “married” before “woman” in section b. See Cal. Civ. Code § 7005 (West 1983).

61 Cal. Civ. Code § 7005(b) (West 1983).

62 Jhordan C. v. Mary K., 224 Cal. Rptr. 530, 534 (Ct. App. 1986).

63 Id. at 531.

64 Compare Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 19-4-106 (West 1986 & Supp. 1993) with Cal. Civ. Code § 7005 (West 1983).

65 775 P.2d 27 (Colo. 1989).

66 Id. at 28.

67 Id.

68 Id. at 35.

69 Id.

70 In re R.C., 775 P.2d 27, 35 (Colo. 1989).

71 Id.

72 Or. Rev. Stat. § 677.360 (1991).

73 Or . Rev. Stat. § 109.239(1) (1991).

74 780 P.2d 239 (Or. App.), rev. denied, 784 P.2d 1100 (Or. 1989), cert, denied, 495 U.S. 905 (1990).

75 Mclntyre, 780 P.2d at 241.

76 Id.

77 Id. at 244.

78 Id. at 245 n.5.

79 Id. at 245.

80 The South in Brief, Atlanta J. & Const., Aug. 17, 1992, at A3.

81 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 49A-1 (Michie 1984).

82 The South in Brief, supra note 80, at A3.

83 Id.

84 North Dakota and Virginia are the only two states to have adopted the USCACA. 9B U.L.A. 135; see statutes, supra note 28.

85 “ ‘Donor’ means an individual [other than a surrogate] who produces egg or sperm used for assisted conception, whether or not payment is made for the egg or sperm used, but does not include a woman who gives birth to a resulting child.” USCACA § 1(2), 9B U.L.A. 138.

86 USCACA § 4(a), 9B U.L.A. at 140.

87 USCACA § 4 cmt., 9B U.L.A. at 140.

88 Id. (requiring the involvement of a licensed physician “is not realistic in light of present practices in the field of artificial insemination.“).

89 599 N.Y.S.2d 377 (Fam. Ct. 1993).

90 Id. at 381-82. The conception took place in California, but the parties did not use a licensed physician, so California's AI statute did not terminate Thomas S.'s rights. Id. at 378 n.4.

91 Id. at 378-79.

92 Id. at 380.

93 Thomas S., 599 N.Y.S.2d at 378.

94 Id. at 382.

95 See In re Adoption of Tammy, 619 N.E.2d 315, 316 (Mass. 1993); Adoptions of B.L.V.B. & E.L.V.B., 628 A.2d 1271, 1272 (Vt. 1993); In re Evan, 583 N.Y.S.2d 997, 998 (Sur. Ct. 1992); In re Adoption of T., 17 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1523 (D.C. Sup. Ct. Fam. Div. Aug. 30, 1991); In re Roberta Achtenberg, No. Ad 18490, slip op. (Cal. Super. Ct. Apr. 18, 1989); In re Child # 1 & Child # 2 , No. 89-5-00067-7, slip op. (Wash. Super. Ct. Nov. 16, 1989); In re Adoption of a Minor Child, No. 1JU-86-73 P/A, slip op. (Alaska Super. Ct. Feb. 6, 1987).

96 In re Evan, 583 N.Y.S.2d at 1000.

97 Id. at 998-99.

98 In re Adoption of Tammy, 619 N.E.2d at 316.

99 If the death of a parent leaves the child with no legally recognized parent, a court is not bound by the deceased parent's choice of legal guardian. The court will consider the best interests of the child when confronted with conflicting custody claims. In re Pearlman, 15 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1355 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Mar. 31, 1989). While the court is making its determination, the child remains in an unstable living situation and may be separated from the only living person the child has known as a parent. See, e.g., id. (non-biological mother, who made decision with biological mother to conceive via AI, won a four-year custody dispute with child's maternal grandparents following the death of the biological mother; the child was separated from her non-biological mother during the litigation and told the court “for Christmas I don't really want a present. All I want is to live with Neenie” — her non-biological mother).

100 See. e.g.. In re Adoption of a Minor Child, No. 1JU-86-73 P/A, slip op. (Alaska Super. Ct. Feb. 6, 1987).

101 See, e.g., In re Roberta Achtenberg, No. AD 18490, slip op. (Cal. Super. Ct. Apr. 18, 1989).

102 See, e.g., In re Adoption of Tammy, 619 N.E.2d at 315.

103 See, e.g., D.C. Judge Grants Two Parent Adoption for Lesbian Couple, Lesbian/Gay Law Notes 63 (Oct. 1991).

104 See, e.g., In re Evan, 583 N.Y.S.2d 997, 997 (Sur. Ct. 1992).

105 See, e.g.. Adoptions of B.L.V.B. & E.L.V.B., 628 A.2d 1271 (Vt. 1993).

106 See, e.g., In re Child # 1 & Child # 2 , No. 89-5-00067-7, slip op. (Wash. Super. Ct. Nov. 16, 1989).

107 See, e.g., In re Adoption of T., 17 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1523 (D.C. Sup. Ct. Fam. Div. Aug. 30, 1991).

108 See In re Adoption of a Minor Child, No. 1JU-86-73 P/A, slip op. (Alaska Super. Ct. Feb. 6, 1987); In re Roberta Achtenberg, No. AD 18490, slip op. (Cal. Super. Ct. Apr. 18, 1989); In re Adoption of T., 17 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1523; In re Adoption of Tammy, 619 N.E.2d 315, 316 (Mass. 1993); In re Evan, 583 N.Y.S.2d 997, 998 (Sur. Ct. 1992); Adoptions of B.L.V.D. & E.L.V.D., 628 A.2d 1271, 1272 (Vt. 1993); In re Child # 1 & Child # 2 , No. 89-5-00067-7, slip op. (Wash. Super. Nov. 16, 1989).

109 In re Evan, 583 N.Y.S.2d at 999.

110 Alison D. v. Virginia M., 572 N.E.2d 27, 28 (N.Y. 1991); see also Curiale v. Reagan, 272 Cal. Rptr. 520, 522 (Ct. App. 1990). But see Nancy S. v. Michele G., 279 Cal. Rptr. 212, 215 n.2 (Ct. App. 1991); A.C. v. C.B., 829 P.2d 660, 665 (N.M. App. 1992). In A.C. v. C.B., the court determined petitioner had “made a colorable claim of standing” to assert her claim, and remanded the suit for proceedings not inconsistent with the appellate proceeding. 829 P.2d at 665.

111 Curiale, 272 Cal. Rptr. at 522 (observing that “there is no statutory or decisional authority to grant [the non-biological mother] rights of custody and/or visitation over the objections of the child's natural parent“); Alison D., 572 N.E.2d at 29 (“It has long been recognized that, as between a parent and a third person, parental custody of a child may not be displaced absent grievous cause or necessity.“) (quoting In re Ronald FF. v. Cindy GG., 511 N.E.2d 75, 77 (N.Y. 1987)).

112 See Xancy S., 279 Cal. Rptr. 212 (holding that lesbian partner who joined in partner's decision to have a child by AI, who was listed on the birth certificate as the father and was referred to by both children as “Mom,” was not a parent within the meaning of the UPA was not entitled to custody, and was entitled to visitation only upon natural mother's consent); Curiale, 272 Cal. Rptr. 520 (holding that lesbian partner of woman who conceived by AI during the relationship did not have colorable claim of right to custody); Alison D., 572 N.E.2d 27 (holding that woman who planned the conception of the child with biological mother, shared all expenses and support, and gave her name to the child as his middle name, was “a biological stranger” to the child and had no visitation rights against biological mother).

113 Nancy S., 279 Cal. Rptr. at 219; Curiale, 272 Cal. Rptr. at 522; Alison D., 572 N.E.2d at 29.

114 484 N.Y.S.2d 780 (1985).

115 Id. at 784.

116 Id. at 781-82.

117 Id. at 784.

118 Id. (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1003 (5th ed. 1979)).

119 Karin T., 484 N.Y.S.2d at 784.

120 Id.

121 Many women who decide to get pregnant through artificial insemination are surprised to learn that while they can find out the eye color, body type and intelligence of a donor, they can't find out anything about his medical history. A majority of the physicians who took part in the Office of Technology Assessment study said they would never allow a recipient to review the medical records of a donor, even if all the information about the man's identity had been removed.

Gaines, supra note 10, at 20.

122 See, e.g., Thomas S. v. Robin Y., 599 N.Y.S.2d 377, 378 (Fam. Ct. 1993).

123 Jhordan C. v. Mary K., 224 Cal. Rptr. 530, 535 (Ct. App. 1986) (arguments of defendantmother).

124 Id. at 534.

125 Id. at 535.

126 See Johnson v. Calvert, 851 P.2d 776, 782 n.10 (Cal.), cert, denied, 114 S. Ct. 206 (1993).

127 See supra notes 65-79 and accompanying text.

128 See supra notes 46-47 and accompanying text; see generally Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983); Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380 (1979); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972).

129 Lehr, 463 U.S. at 262.

130 Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 124 n.4 (1989).

131 Id. at 124.

132 Id. at n.4.

133 See Thomas S. v. Robin Y., 599 N.Y.S.2d 377, 381 (Fam. Ct. 1993).

134 Id.; see also R.S. v. R.S., 670 P.2d 923, 924, 928 (Kan. Ct. App. 1983); K.B. v. N.B., 811 S.W.2d 634, 636-39 (Tex. Ct. App. 1991).

135 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.

136 463 U.S. 248 (1983).

137 Id. at 262-63.

138 Id. at 250-51.

139 Id. at 251.

140 Id. at 256-65.

141 Lehr, 463 U.S. at 264.

142 id.

143 Id.

144 Id. at 262.

145 Mclntyre v. Crouch, 780 P.2d 239, 247 (Or. App.) (Richardson, J., dissenting), rev. denied, 784 P.2d 1100 (Or. 1989), cert, denied, 495 U.S. 905 (1990).

146 780 P.2d at 243.

147 See In re Adoption of Tammy, 619 N.E.2d 315, 316 (Mass. 1993).

148 See, e.g., id. at 316 (noting that “[o]ver a dozen witnesses, including mental health professionals, teachers, colleagues, neighbors, blood relatives and a priest and nun, testified to the fact that … [the biological mother, co-parent, and Tammy] form a healthy, happy, and stable family unit“).

149 See, e.g., Idaho Code § 39-5401 (1993) (AI means the “introduction of semen of a donor … into a woman's vagina, cervical canal or uterus through the use of instruments or other artificial means.“); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 168-B: 1 (Supp. 1993) (“AI” means the “introduction of semen into a woman's vagina, cervical canal or uterus through extracorporeal or noncoital means“).

150 See Mclnlyre, 780 P.2d at 243.

151 See Black's Law Dictionary 712 (5th ed. 1979) (defining “parent“).

152 Nancy S. v. Michele G., 279 Cal. Rptr. 212, 219 (Ct. App. 1991) (explaining that expanding the definition of parent to lesbian partner of biological mother “could expose other natural parents to litigation brought by child-care providers of long standing relatives, successive sets of stepparents or other close friends of family“).

153 See OR. REV. STAT. § 109.239 (1991).

154 In re R.C., 775 P.2d 27, 33 (Colo. 1989).

155 See, e.g., Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3111.32 (Anderson 1989).

156 See Ala. Code § 26-17-21 (1992); Alaska Stat. § 25.20.045 (1991); Ark. Code Ann. § 9- 10-202 (Michie 1993); Cal. Civ. Code § 7005 (West 1983); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-4-106 (West 1986 & Supp. 1993); Ga. Code Ann. § 19-7-21 (Michie 1991); Idaho Code § 39-5402 (1993); I I I . Ann. Stat. ch. 750, para. 40 (Smith-Hurd 1993); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 257.56 (West 1992); Mo. Ann. Stat. § 193.085 (Vernon Supp. 1993); Mont. Code Ann. §40-6-106 (1993); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 126.061 (1991); N.J. Stat. Ann. §9:17-44 (West 1993); N.M. Stat. Ann. §40-11-6 (Michie 1989); N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 73 (Consol. 1979); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3111.32 (Anderson 1989); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10 §§ 551-55 (West 1987 & Supp. 1994); OR. Rf.V. Stat. § 109.239 (1991); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.26.050 (West 1986); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 891.40 (West Supp. 1993); Wyo. Stat. § 14-2-103 (1986).

157 Jean Seligman, Variations on a Theme, Newsweek, Sp. Ed., Winter/Spring 1990, at 38 (reporting the results of a study in which adults were asked to select a definition of family; only 22% chose a legalistic definition of family—“[a] group of people related by blood, marriage or adoption— while nearly 75 percent chose the functional definition of “family.“).

158 Adoptions of B.L.V.B. and E.L.V.B., 628 A.2d 1271, 1276 (Vt. 1993).