Janssen V. Alicea Case Summary

In Janssen v. Alicea case, 30 So. 3d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), a child was born to biological parents who were close friends via artificial insemination. After two years, the mother decided to move to California with the child and the father filed a claim to establish his paternity rights. 6The child's birth certificate listed the names of both the father and the mother. One of the parts argued they have a prior oral agreement and they would be co-parenting the boy. The mother defended claiming that the father was a simply sperm donor6 defined by F.S. §742.148 and that his parental rights were relinquished. Primarily, the court ruled in favor of the mother and the father appealed the decision arguing that both parties were a “commissioning couple” (FL§742.138)6 and, therefore, he was not giving up his parental rights. The

Lucas, 823 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), rev. den., D.A.L. v. L.A.L., 835 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 2002), the sperm donor had entered a written agreement before the use of artificial insemination.6 This contract specified that the donor would not have parental rights or obligations if the mother became pregnant through the procedure.6 Even though after the mother gave birth to twins, the biological father filed a paternity claim by arguing that both parties constituted a “commissioning couple”.6 The court rejected this argument, because they did not contract to raise the children together as an intended couple and the F.S. § 742.148 was used to prevent the paternity request. The decision in Lamaritata case was distinguished from “Janssen vs Alicea” case. In the Lamaritata case, there was a prior written agreement defining that the biological father was a just a sperm donor and there were no elements that would establish a relationship between the two parties as a couple.6 Moreover, despite the biological parents of the child had agreed to specific visitation, Florida courts do not enforce a contract for visitation in favor of a