According to reports, Patric is seeking rights to be involved in the life of Gus, a 3-year old boy he says is his son, a point Danielle Schreiber, his ex-girlfriend, disputes. Gus was conceived using artificial insemination with Patric’s sperm.

However, the two disagrees on the pre-determined role Patric would have following the birth of Gus. Schreiber says Patric was nothing more than a sperm donor and that she was always supposed to have sole custody of Gus. Under California law, sperm donors have no parental rights except when the couple is married or have signed documents determining the parental role prior to conception.

Meanwhile, Patric claims he signed such forms and that the couple decided to have the child together. He says he has not seen Gus in months despite being his dad for more than two years, sharing tuition costs with Schreiber and signing medical and preschool paperwork for the boy. Patric also says Gus calls him ‘dada’ and that it is unfair for the child to put him in the middle of what is essentially a custody dispute between him and Schreiber now that they are no longer a couple.

Schreiber disputes Patric’s claims about his level of involvement in Gus’ life and some have pointed to the fact that Patric’s name is not on Gus’ birth certificate as proof of his intentions. Patric claims this was done on purpose to shield the boy from the scrutiny of the paparazzi. He says the words “sperm donor” only entered into the custody dispute after Schreiber’s lawyers tried to use a loophole in the law to win Schreiber full custody.

California State Sen. Jerry Hill introduced Bill SB115 on Jan. 16 in order to update California’s laws regarding paternity rights. The law, if passed, would allow donors to seek paternity rights under certain circumstances, which is generally not the case now. People like Patric would then make a case to be a part of their offspring’s life.

According to the Bill text for SB115, existing law states: “The Uniform Parentage Act … provides that the donor of semen provided to a licensed physician and surgeon or to a licensed sperm bank for use in artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization of a woman other than the donor’s wife is treated in law as if he were not the natural father of a child thereby conceived, unless otherwise agreed to in a writing signed by the donor and the woman prior to the conception of the child.” (emphasis added)

However, Hill’s amendment would seek to remedy this. It goes on to state that the Bill, if passed, will allow “any interested party [to] bring action at any time for the purpose of determining the parentage of a man presumed to be the father because he receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his natural child.”

In this instance, the law is seeking to provide an avenue for parentage when one might not have existed. It provides a stark contrast to another case out of Kansas, where one man was being asked for financial support for a child he fathered, but had no intention of raising.

Also in January, William Marotta was ordered by a judge to pay child support when the lesbian couple he donated his sperm to split, leaving one of the women with the baby and Marotta apparently on the hook for supporting their baby girl, according to numerous reports. At the heart of the issue is Kansas law 23-2208, under the “presumption of paternity” section.

The Kansas law reads: “The donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor's wife is treated in law as if he were not the birth father of a child thereby conceived, unless agreed to in writing by the donor and the woman.”

Marotta contends the provision shields him from responsibility, while Angela Bauer, who has been caring for the child, argues the law only applies if the insemination was provided by “a licensed physician,” which was not the case in this particular situation, according to information from area news outlets.

With science and society moving toward a new normal, the courts must play catch-up. And, the instances are likely to continue to be front-and-center as people’s attitude toward what makes a “family” shift.

Family by Design, an organization that researches non-traditional families and provides resources for people looking for a number of “parenting partnerships,” including same-sex couple, cites a growing trend in how society views a “family,” reflecting broader changes in the social norms.

According to the group, a 2010 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in association with TIME, reported that 63% of people, nationwide, see a gay or lesbian couple raising a child as a “family.” Further, “fully 86% of respondents said a single parent and child constitute a family; nearly as many (80%) said an unmarried couple living together with a child is a family.”

Dan Sabbatino is an award winning journalist whose accolades include a New York Press Association award for a series of articles he wrote dealing with a small upstate town’s battle over the implications of letting a “big-box” retailer locate within its borders. He has worked as a reporter and editor since 2007 primarily covering state and local politics for a number of Capital Region publications, including The Legislative Gazette.