(A) If a married woman is the subject of a non-spousal artificial insemination and if her husband consented to the artificial insemination, the husband shall be treated in law and regarded as the natural father of a child conceived as a result of the artificial insemination, and a child so conceived shall be treated in law and regarded as the natural child of the husband. A presumption that arises under division (A)(1) or (2) of section 3111.03 of the Revised Code is conclusive with respect to this father and child relationship, and no action or proceeding under sections 3111.01 to 3111.18 or sections 3111.38 to 3111.54 of the Revised Code shall affect the relationship.
(B) If a woman is the subject of a non-spousal artificial insemination, the donor shall not be treated in law or regarded as the natural father of a child conceived as a result of the artificial insemination, and a child so conceived shall not be treated in law or regarded as the natural child of the donor. No action or proceeding under sections 3111.01 to 3111.18 or sections 3111.38 to 3111.54 of the Revised Code shall affect these consequences.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: In re K.M.H., 169 P.3d 1025 (Kan. 2007).
In re K.M.H., 169 P.3d 1025 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 3ד§ 40 -ll-6(A) (Michie 2006) (same); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3111.95 (A) (Anderson 2003) (sim *64 ilar); Wis.”
In re L.E.S., 2024 Ohio 165 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 10דWe find this remedy to be within the clear intent of R.C. 3111.95 of legitimizing any child(ren) conceived under the circumstances of the statute by two consenting parents—who would have been married absent the ban—and ensuring that both consenting parents are responsible for…”
Henry v. Himes, 14 F. Supp. 3d 1036 (S.D. Ohio 2014). · cites it 4דSee Ohio Rev.Code § 3111.95 (providing that if “a married woman” uses “non-spousal artificial insemination” to which her spouse consented, the spouse “shall be treated in law and regarded as” the parent of the child, and the sperm donor shall have no parental rights); see also…”
In re Bonfield, 97 Ohio St. 3d 387 (Ohio 2002). · cites it 2ד” They point to R.C. 3111.95(A), which accords the consenting husband of a woman inseminated through nonspousal artificial insemination the status of father of the child so conceived, even though the husband has no natural or adoptive relationship to the child.”
In re Bonfield, 2002 Ohio 6660 (Ohio 2002). · cites it 2ד” They point to R.C. 3111.95(A), which accords the consenting husband of a woman inseminated through nonspousal artificial insemination the status of father of the child so conceived, even though the husband has no natural or adoptive relationship to the child.”
In re Bonfield, 96 Ohio St. 3d 218 (Ohio 2002). · cites it 2ד” They point to R.C. 3111.95(A), which accords the consenting husband of a woman inseminated through nonspousal artificial insemination the status of father of the child so conceived, even though the husband has no natural or adoptive relationship to the child.”
In re Bonfield, 2002 Ohio 4182 (Ohio 2002). · cites it 2ד” They point to R.C. 3111.95(A), which accords the consenting husband of a woman inseminated through nonspousal artificial insemination the status of father of the child so conceived, even though the husband has no natural or adoptive relationship to the child.”
In re L.E.S., 2026 Ohio 1449 (Ohio 2026). · cites it 8ד] Domestic relations—Parentage—R.C. 3111.95(A), which provides an avenue for the consenting spouse of a woman who conceives a child through artificial insemination to be recognized as the natural parent of the child, does not apply to same-sex couples who were not married at…”
J.F. v. D.B., 165 Ohio App. 3d 791 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2ד03(A)(1); R.C. 3111.95(A). In Pennsylvania, this presumption is even stronger than in Ohio: “the presumption is irrefutable where the mother, child and husband live together as an intact family, with the husband assuming parental responsibility.”
J.U. v. A.F., 2024 Ohio 4944 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “); R.C. 3111.95 (A). This parent-and-child relationship gives rise to parental rights, such as the right to custody, but also to parental responsibilities, such as the obligation to provide child support.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3111.95(A) — 8 cases
In re L.E.S., 2024 Ohio 165 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “We find this remedy to be within the clear intent of R.C. 3111.95 of legitimizing any child(ren) conceived under the circumstances of the statute by two consenting parents—who would have been married absent the ban—and ensuring that both consenting parents are responsible for…”
Henry v. Himes, 14 F. Supp. 3d 1036 (S.D. Ohio 2014). “See Ohio Rev.Code § 3111.95 (providing that if “a married woman” uses “non-spousal artificial insemination” to which her spouse consented, the spouse “shall be treated in law and regarded as” the parent of the child, and the sperm donor shall have no parental rights); see also…”
In re Bonfield, 97 Ohio St. 3d 387 (Ohio 2002). “” They point to R.C. 3111.95(A), which accords the consenting husband of a woman inseminated through nonspousal artificial insemination the status of father of the child so conceived, even though the husband has no natural or adoptive relationship to the child.”
In re Bonfield, 2002 Ohio 6660 (Ohio 2002). “” They point to R.C. 3111.95(A), which accords the consenting husband of a woman inseminated through nonspousal artificial insemination the status of father of the child so conceived, even though the husband has no natural or adoptive relationship to the child.”
In re Bonfield, 96 Ohio St. 3d 218 (Ohio 2002). “” They point to R.C. 3111.95(A), which accords the consenting husband of a woman inseminated through nonspousal artificial insemination the status of father of the child so conceived, even though the husband has no natural or adoptive relationship to the child.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3111.95(B) — 6 cases
In re Bonfield, 97 Ohio St. 3d 387 (Ohio 2002). “” They point to R.C. 3111.95(A), which accords the consenting husband of a woman inseminated through nonspousal artificial insemination the status of father of the child so conceived, even though the husband has no natural or adoptive relationship to the child.”
In re Bonfield, 2002 Ohio 6660 (Ohio 2002). “” They point to R.C. 3111.95(A), which accords the consenting husband of a woman inseminated through nonspousal artificial insemination the status of father of the child so conceived, even though the husband has no natural or adoptive relationship to the child.”
In re L.E.S., 2024 Ohio 165 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “We find this remedy to be within the clear intent of R.C. 3111.95 of legitimizing any child(ren) conceived under the circumstances of the statute by two consenting parents—who would have been married absent the ban—and ensuring that both consenting parents are responsible for…”
In re Bonfield, 96 Ohio St. 3d 218 (Ohio 2002). “” They point to R.C. 3111.95(A), which accords the consenting husband of a woman inseminated through nonspousal artificial insemination the status of father of the child so conceived, even though the husband has no natural or adoptive relationship to the child.”
In re Bonfield, 2002 Ohio 4182 (Ohio 2002). “” They point to R.C. 3111.95(A), which accords the consenting husband of a woman inseminated through nonspousal artificial insemination the status of father of the child so conceived, even though the husband has no natural or adoptive relationship to the child.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.