Ruling on Sperm Donor’s Right to Fatherhood Stands : Supreme Court: Justices refuse to hear woman’s challenge to case in which unwed man was granted legal authority to establish his paternity.

A man who agrees to help a woman bear a child by donating sperm has a constitutional right to claim fatherhood, according to a ruling which the Supreme Court let stand Monday.

This decision adds a new wrinkle to the developing law on artificial insemination.

Nationwide, an estimated 20,000 children a year are born through artificial insemination. At least 28 states, including California, have enacted laws stating that sperm donors, other than husbands, have no legal rights to a child produced through artificial insemination.

But under past high court rulings, unwed fathers who had an extended relationship with a woman were deemed to have a constitutional right to claim fatherhood of any child that is produced. These rulings involved children conceived through sexual intercourse, but the Oregon courts said the same principles apply to artificial insemination.

In this case, involving an unmarried Oregon woman and a California man, the Oregon state courts said the man had a constitutional right to establish his paternity in court because of their long-term friendship.

Without comment Monday, the justices refused to hear the woman’s challenge to this ruling.

This decision, even if applied nationwide, will likely affect only a small percentage of children conceived through artificial insemination. Of the estimated 20,000 children born each year through that technique, only about 1,500 involve unmarried women, according to a study cited in court briefs. And the vast majority of these inseminations are arranged through doctor-supervised sperm banks where the donors are anonymous.

Kevin McIntyre, a community college instructor from Moraga, Calif., said he knew Linden Crouch of Ashland, Ore., for 13 years. For several years, he had tried unsuccessfully to adopt a child. In 1985, he agreed to donate sperm so that Crouch could bear a child. According to McIntyre, he and Crouch talked about the baby at length and agreed that he would play an active role in the child’s life. But Crouch, who says she is a lesbian, denies she made any such agreement.

After the 1986 birth of Crouch’s daughter, McIntyre was cut off from establishing any relationship with her. He filed suit in an Oregon court seeking to have his paternity established, but a trial judge threw out the suit, citing the state’s artificial insemination law. It states: “Such donor shall have no right, obligation or interest with respect to a child born as a result of the artificial insemination.”

On a 2-1 vote, an Oregon appeals court reversed that decision and ruled that McIntyre had a constitutional right to claim fatherhood. Now, he is entitled to a hearing before the trial judge to attempt to prove that he and Crouch agreed he would get to see the child regularly. Both the Oregon Supreme Court and now the U.S. Supreme Court refused to disturb that ruling. (Crouch vs. McIntyre, 89-1424.)

Ronald Fontana, a Portland attorney who represented McIntyre, said the Oregon law on artificial insemination “was intended to deal with anonymous donors and (said) that they had no rights as fathers. It was not intended to deal with a situation where two unmarried people get together and agree to have a child.”

In 1986, the California state courts issued a somewhat similar ruling. Though the state law said sperm donors do not have paternity rights, the state courts said this law covered only artificial insemination supervised by a doctor. Therefore, a man who agreed to help a woman become impregnated without a doctor’s involvement retained the right to seek paternity in court.

In other actions, the court:

--Rejected an appeal from a former scientologist who said the Church of Scientology should be declared a “religious front.” This appeal grew out of a Los Angeles case in which Larry Wollersheim, the former scientologist, won a $2.5-million judgment against the church. The justices are still considering the church’s appeal of that judgment. (Wollersheim vs. Church of Scientology of California, 89-1367.)

--Ordered the Minnesota Supreme Court to reconsider a ruling which said the Amish drivers of horse-drawn buggies may not be required to display a bright yellow-orange symbol to warn other drivers. The state ruling said such a requirement would violate the religious freedom rights of the Amish. But last week, the high court said states need not provide religious exemptions to general state laws. (Minnesota vs. Hershberger, 89-804.)

--Let stand a ruling that could allow as many as 600,000 owners of 1981-85 General Motors cars with diesel engines to sue the manufacturer. Under federal law, the warranties on autos and other consumer products are only good for as long as stated in the contract.

Based on that understanding, a federal judge in South Carolina dismissed a nationwide class-action suit against GM because the engine problems arose after the 24-month or 36-month warranty had expired. But last year, the appeals court in Richmond reinstated the suit by ruling that GM appeared to know of the problems in advance but kept this information from buyers. Without comment, the justices refused to hear GM’s appeal. (GMC vs. Carlson, 89-1164.)