Law of Wills, 2016A

fees on appeal.
Notes and Questions
1. If the husband in Lane sought to be relieved of all legal responsibility for the child, would the
result of the case have been the same?
2. In Lane, the husband refused to reverse his vasectomy. In addition, the husband never gave
written consent to have his wife artificially inseminated. In light of those facts, did the court
correctly conclude that the husband had substantially complied with the statutory written consent
requirement?
3. What are the disadvantages of the court giving “written consent” such a broad meaning?
4. Does the court’s analysis conflict with the plain language of the statute? Do you think that it
carries out the legislature’s intent?
5. Based upon the three-part test established in the case, in which of the following situations would
the written consent requirement be satisfied?
(a) The husband posted a message on his social media page stating that he and his wife were going
to be parents.
(b) Husband and Wife sign and send out the following baby shower announcement: “Please join us
to celebrate the impending birth of our child.”
(c) Prior to the birth of the child, Husband and Wife fill out an adoption petition requesting that
Husband be allowed to adopt the child.
(d) Husband and Wife execute a contract in which they agree that the Husband will be the father of
any child born during their marriage.
6.4.1.2 Verbal Consent
The key purpose of the written consent requirement is to make sure that the husband is not
forced to parent a child without his consent. Consequently, if the husband acknowledges that he
consented to the artificial insemination, the court will recognize him as the legal father even in the
absence of written consent. As the next case indicates, once the court determines that the man has
given some type of consent, written or verbal, that consent cannot be easily revoked. The majority
of states do not permit a man to withdraw his initial consent to the artificial insemination. Thus, a
man who changes his mind after initially consenting to the artificial insemination of his wife may still
be recognized as the legal father of the resulting child.
282