Published on:

Sperm donor was not precluded from establishing paternity rights. Matter of Martin B. v. Eden E., 136 A.D.3d 487 (1st Dep’t 2016)


Establishing paternity is a critical legal process that can impact a child’s life in many ways. In New York, paternity can be established voluntarily or involuntarily through a court proceeding. Establishing paternity can have important legal and emotional implications for parents and children, including child support, custody, and visitation rights. In the case of Matter of Martin B. v. Eden E. the New York courts dealt with the issue of the equitable estoppel defense in paternity cases.

Factual Background
Martin B. and Eden E. were in a committed same-sex relationship for several years, during which time they decided to have a child together. They both agreed that Martin B. would be the biological father, and they sought the assistance of a fertility clinic to conceive a child using Eden E.’s eggs and Martin B.’s sperm. The child was born in 2009, and the couple raised her together as equal parents for several years.

In 2013, Martin B. and Eden E. separated, and Martin B. filed a petition to establish his paternity and seek joint custody of the child. Eden E. opposed the petition and argued that Martin B. should be barred from seeking paternity under the equitable estoppel doctrine. She claimed that Martin B. had held himself out as a sperm donor rather than a parent and that he should not be allowed to assert his parental rights now.

The issue in Matter of Martin B. v. Eden E. was whether the equitable estoppel defense could be used to preclude a biological father from establishing paternity and seeking custody of his child. Equitable estoppel is a legal doctrine that prevents a person from taking a position that is inconsistent with his or her previous conduct if that position would result in harm to another person who has relied on that conduct. In paternity cases, the doctrine is often used to prevent a person who has acted as a parent for a significant period from denying paternity.

The court rejected Eden E.’s argument and held that the equitable estoppel defense could not be used to preclude Martin B. from seeking paternity and custody of the child. The court found that Martin B.’s conduct was not inconsistent with his position as a parent and that he had not misled Eden E. into believing that he was merely a sperm donor. The court noted that Martin B. had been involved in the child’s life since her birth and had held himself out as a parent to her and to others.

The court also found that the child’s best interests were served by allowing Martin B. to establish paternity and seek custody. The court noted that the child had a close relationship with Martin B. and that he had been an active and involved parent. The court further noted that denying Martin B.’s petition would have a negative impact on the child’s emotional well-being and would not serve her best interests.

In the context of sperm donation, the equitable estoppel defense could be used if a man donates sperm to a woman with the understanding that he will not have any parental rights or responsibilities. If the woman subsequently conceives a child using the donated sperm, and the man later attempts to establish paternity, the equitable estoppel defense may prevent him from doing so.

To establish the defense of equitable estoppel in a sperm donor case, the following elements must be shown:

  • The man donated sperm to the woman with the understanding that he would not have parental rights or responsibilities;
  • The woman relied on the man’s representations and did not expect him to have any parental rights or responsibilities;
  • The man did not act like a father to the child, or if he did, the woman did not encourage or permit such behavior;
  • The child has formed a bond with the woman, and it would be harmful to the child to disrupt that bond by allowing the man to establish paternity.

If all of these elements are present, it may be unfair to allow the man to establish paternity, and the defense of equitable estoppel may apply.

The case of Matter of Martin B. v. Eden E. highlights the importance of establishing paternity and the complexities that can arise in cases involving sperm donation. It also underscores the importance of understanding the legal doctrines that may be used to challenge paternity claims, such as the equitable estoppel defense. If you are facing a paternity issue, it is important to consult with an experienced New York family law lawyer who can advise you on your legal rights and options.


Posted in:
Published on:

Comments are closed.

Contact Information