Surprisingly (not!) South Carolina law has not kept pace with modern families! In vitro fertilization, donor sperm, donor eggs, and other forms of assisted reproduction are no longer rare. They are part of ordinary family life. Yet South Carolina still has no effective donor statute that clearly states who is — and who is not — a legal parent when a child is conceived through assisted reproduction.

That gap matters.

The current Children’s Code contains extensive provisions dealing with custody, visitation, paternity, child support, adoption, and termination of parental rights. But when it comes to children conceived through IVF using donated sperm or eggs, the law remains largely silent. In the existing version of Section 63-3-530(A) there is no operative language giving clear direction to family courts about parental rights in assisted reproduction cases.

A donor statute has been introduced in the SC House and is sponsor by Reps. Travis Moore (R Spartanburg), Heather Ammons Crawford (R Horry) and Gil Gatch (R Dorchester) and that is intended to change that. It would expressly authorize family courts to determine parental rights in connection with assisted reproduction. It would also define key terms such as “donor,” “assisted reproduction,” and “intended parent.” Most importantly, it would help distinguish between a person who donates genetic material and the person or couple who intended to bring a child into the world and raise that child as their own.

Without such a statute, IVF families may face uncertainty in exactly the areas where certainty is most important: custody, visitation, and child support.

Consider a married couple who uses donor sperm to conceive a child. Both spouses intend to be parents. Both raise the child. But if the marriage later ends, could the non-genetic parent be forced to prove parentage? Could that parent attempt to avoid child support by claiming no biological connection? Could a known donor later claim custody or visitation? South Carolina law does not give families, lawyers, judges, or fertility clinics a clear answer.

That uncertainty harms children. A child born through IVF should not have his or her legal status depend upon later litigation between adults. The law should protect the child’s relationship with the intended parents and prevent donors from being treated as legal parents merely because of genetics. Likewise, intended parents should not be allowed to walk away from custody or support responsibilities after having chosen to create and raise a child through assisted reproduction.

The proposed donor statute would not create new families. Those families already exist. It would simply recognize them and provide legal certainty. It would protect children from instability, protect intended parents from donor claims, protect donors from unexpected parental obligations, and give family courts a clear framework for deciding disputes.

South Carolina’s legislature has not yet acted. Until it does, families formed through IVF and donor-assisted reproduction remain vulnerable to avoidable legal disputes. A carefully drafted donor statute would bring South Carolina law in line with modern reproductive medicine and, more importantly, with the best interests of the children already being born into these families.