The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled on August 12, 2024 that the Ramsey County District Court should have dismissed a paternity action brought against a same-sex married couple by their sperm donor.
In its opinion, the appellate court sided with mothers Julianna and Catherine Sheridan, concluding that the lower court wrongly denied their motion to dismiss and that the sperm donor was precluded from bringing a paternity action for their child under Minnesota law.
In August 2017, Christopher Edrington agreed to be a sperm donor for the Sheridans. Following a successful at-home insemination, Julianna Sheridan gave birth to their daughter in July 2018. Julianna and Catherine Sheridan were the only individuals listed on their daughter’s birth certificate and together raised her in their St. Paul home.
The Sheridans agreed that Edrington could take part in their daughter’s life but became concerned in June 2022 when he began referring to her as his daughter, despite their requests that he refrain from doing so. Edrington filed a paternity petition in March 2023, requesting joint legal and physical custody. He eventually amended that petition to request an order to compel genetic testing to establish his biological paternity.
In April 2023, the Sheridans moved to dismiss Edrington’s paternity action. The district court denied the motion, concluding that (1) Julianna Sheridan and the Sheridans’ daughter were required to submit to genetic testing to establish Edrington’s biological paternity; (2) Minn. Stat. § 257.62, subd. 5(c)—which was drafted to prevent such actions by sperm and egg donors—did not apply; and (3) Edrington had standing to bring his paternity action because he had welcomed the Sheridans’ daughter into his home and referred to her as his daughter.
In its opinion, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the district court wrongly ordered Julianna Sheridan and her daughter to submit to genetic testing, confirming that Minnesota law prohibits sperm donors from using genetic testing to claim parentage over a child conceived through assisted reproduction using their donated gametes. The Court further concluded that the nature of Edrington’s relationship and time spent with the Sheridans’ daughter did not give him standing to assert paternity rights. The court therefore ordered that Edrington’s paternity action be dismissed with prejudice.
