From today’s decision by the Court of Appeals of Virginia in Bruce v. Boardwine: 
 
 
 
 [Joyce] Bruce wanted to conceive a child she could raise on her own, without the involvement of a father. Bruce apparently believed that if she became pregnant in a way that did not involve sexual intercourse, the biological father would not have a claim to any parental rights. To accomplish this goal, Bruce approached [Robert] Boardwine, a longtime friend, and asked him to be a sperm donor. After some hesitation, Boardwine agreed. Although the parties discussed a written contract regarding any resulting pregnancy, none was ever signed. 
 
 Boardwine explained [in the court proceeding that ultimately resulted] that he intended “to always be involved” with the child. According to Boardwine, the two agreed that Bruce would be the sole parent and that he would be able to see the child as little or as much as he wanted. He stated that he expected to be a part of the child’s life, including attending the child’s sporting activities and being involved in the child’s educational and health decisions. Bruce and Boardwine’s relationship deteriorated around October 2010, when Bruce would not agree to Boardwine’s suggested name for the child. After this argument, they did not speak until shortly after the child’s birth, a period of about five months. Bruce did not inform Boardwine of the birth and did not list Boardwine on the birth certificate. Boardwine, however, learned about the birth and went to the hospital with friends and family. Bruce said that she never asked Boardwine for money or supplies and never asked him to visit or to care for the child. After she returned home from the hospital, Boardwine would come over to her home to visit. She characterized the visits as “[s]ort of strained.” Boardwine was never alone with the child. Eventually, Bruce told Boardwine to “[s]top coming by.” … Boardwine initiated proceedings in the Roanoke City Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court to establish his rights regarding the child, whom we will refer to as J.E. 
 
 Now Virginia law does have a statute under which men can donate sperm and no parental rights — or obligations — arise as a result. But that statute provides that a “donor is not the parent of a child conceived through assisted conception, unless the donor is the husband of the gestational mother,” defines “donor” as “an individual, other than a surrogate, who contributes the sperm or egg used in assisted conception,” and in turn defines “assisted conception” as 
 
 a pregnancy resulting from any intervening medical technology, whether in vivo or in vitro, which completely or partially replaces sexual intercourse as the means of conception. Such intervening medical technology includes, but is not limited to, conventional medical and surgical treatment as well as noncoital reproductive technology such as artificial insemination by donor, cryopreservation of gametes and embryos, in vitro fertilization, uterine embryo lavage, embryo transfer, gamete intrafallopian tube transfer, and low tubal ovum transfer [emphasis added]. 
 
 And “medical technology,” the court concludes, requires something more than a turkey baster: 
 
 The word “medical,” in its ordinary use, means “of, relating to, or concerned with physicians or with the practice of medicine” and “requiring or devoted to medical treatment.” The statute does not encompass all technology. Instead, its language is limited to “medical technology.” The plain meaning of the term “medical technology” does not encompass a kitchen implement such as a turkey baster. The examples listed in Code § 20-156 shed further light on the General Assembly’s intent in crafting this statute…. “When general words and specific words are grouped together, the general words are limited and qualified by the specific words and will be construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects identified by the specific words.” … Bruce did not become pregnant through “conventional medical and surgical treatment.” Furthermore, the examples of “noncoital reproductive technology” listed in Code § 20-156 involve procedures performed with the assistance of medical personnel. An ordinary kitchen implement used at home is simply not analogous to the medical technologies that are listed in Code § 20-156, nor does it constitute a “reproductive” technology under the plain meaning of the term…. 
 
 A sound reading of the statute, it seems to me, even if I think that as a policy matter there’s little reason to distinguish sperm donation where a doctor is involved from turkey baster donation without a doctor. And, as a result, Boardwine did indeed end up having some parental rights: 
 
 Boardwine’s test established his paternity by a probability greater than 99.999%. The path to fatherhood may have been unconventional, but as the father of J.E., Boardwine was entitled to seek (and, as the trial court found, receive), visitation with his son. 
 
 Thanks to How Appealing for the pointer. ||||| Story highlights In July 2010, Joyce Bruce got pregnant in an unusual way -- with repeated attempts using a turkey baster 
 
 The man who gave her his sperm wanted to have a role in his son's life 
 
 They ended up in court, and he has won joint custody and visitation rights 
 
 (CNN) Robert Boardwine's path to fatherhood was unconventional, but Virginia's appeals court said Tuesday he is legally entitled to be a part of his son's life. 
 
 Boardwine's friend, Joyce Bruce, had used his sperm and a turkey baster to get pregnant. She thought after she learned she was with child that they should just be friends. 
 
 She also thought that because they never had sex, she was entitled to be the boy's sole parent, according to court documents. 
 
 The Court of Appeals of Virginia decided differently in weighing the commonwealth's assisted conception statute and denying Bruce's appeal to deny Boardwine visitation. 
 
 It agreed with a circuit court ruling that method of insemination didn't come from medical technology. 
 
 Read More
– In Joyce Bruce's mind, Robert Boardwine was just an old friend who helpfully agreed to donate sperm so she could have a child—no parental rights attached. To Boardwine, however, and now according to a Virginia court, he's entitled to see his young son, CNN reports. The Virginia Court of Appeals' decision yesterday came down to semantics: In its judgment, the use of a turkey baster, which how Bruce inseminated herself with Boardwine's sperm in 2010, isn't enough to keep him out of the picture as the dad, per a Virginia reproduction statute, the Washington Post reports. Bruce contended that because the couple never had sex and instead used "noncoital reproductive technology," she was entitled to sole parenthood, per CNN. The court disagreed, writing in its decision: "The plain meaning of the term 'medical technology' does not encompass a kitchen implement such as a turkey baster." After making the conception plan, the couple's friendship started going south in October 2010 (a few months into the pregnancy) when they disagreed over baby names. She didn't call him when the baby was born, but when he found out, he started visiting. Bruce says those visits were "strained," however, and she asked him to stop coming, which is when he sued for parental rights. Boardwine concedes the two agreed Bruce would be the main parent, but he says they also agreed he could see the child as he pleased—all conditions they never agreed to in writing. The court awarded him joint legal custody and visitation. (A twist in a similar case: A Kansas sperm donor was forced to pay child support.)