A story in last week’s news intrigued me. Actor Jason Patric, at the request of his ex-girlfriend, fathered a child with her through artificial insemination. According to her, he was not to have any custodial rights, visitation rights, or be obligated to pay child support. He was solely, according to her, a sperm donor.

Patric contests her allegations and claims the sperm donation was a part of fertility treatments. He claims he always intended to be an involved parent. In February, a trial judge, relying strictly on California law, ruled Patric was simply a donor and, because the couple is unmarried, Patric could not sue for custodial time. Effectively, the actor has been barred from seeing his son. As a result the actor has become a major proponent of a California bill that would give sperm donors, under certain conditions, the ability to sue for custodial rights.

If Patric’s claims that he was intricately involved in the child’s life for the first two years of his life are true, then the person being harmed here is the child who has the absolute right to have a relationship with his father. But, on the other hand, if he was solely a sperm donor, allowing his involvement in the lives of their children, and others like him, could have a chilling effect on sperm donation programs.  What do you think Gotham?