1. MEMORANDUM
TO: Junior Associates N-Z
FROM: Senior Partner Goering
RE: Covington v. Warren, Case No. 09-D-7419 -- paternity action
DATE: November 2, 2009
David Covington, our client, is the Petitioner in a paternity proceeding against Sarah
Warren, a single mother, the Respondent in this action. A couple of weeks ago she had fraternal
twins – a boy, Carson, and a girl, Catalyn. They were conceived by artificial insemination.
Covington was the sperm donor; at one time he was also Sarah’s very close friend. David has been
in a committed relationship for the last several years with his same-sex domestic partner. Sarah has
never married, but she desperately wanted children.
A couple of years ago, while David and his partner were still living in Mountain Home,
Arkansas, Sarah went to visit them for a few days. While she was there, she asked David if he
would be a sperm donor for her artificial insemination procedure. She had been consulting with a
fertility doctor in Hot Springs, Arkansas. David was reluctant at first, but after giving it some
thought, he warmed to the idea of having a child to continue his genetic bloodline.
Sarah and David talked it over at some length, and he finally agreed to provide sperm
samples for Sarah’s fertility doctor to use in the artificial insemination procedure. He also agreed
to contribute to Sarah’s medical expenses. Recognizing that she would be carrying his child for
nine months, he figured that was the least he could do. Although he understood that Sarah planned
to raise the child as her own, they were good friends and saw each other often at social gatherings.
He was looking forward to regular opportunities to watch his child grow up and to play a
significant role in the child’s life.
The initial artificial insemination procedure took place in October 2008, but no pregnancy
resulted. At that time, David went to the office of the fertility doctor in Hot Springs with Sarah and
provided the sperm sample while he was at the doctor’s office. A couple of months later, after it
became clear that the first attempt had failed to result in a pregnancy, Sarah asked him once again if
he would provide a sperm sample for a second try. He agreed to do so, but he refused to go back
to the doctor’s office to provide the sample. Instead, the doctor supplied Sarah with a small
covered plastic container so that David could provide the sperm sample in the privacy of his own
home in Mountain Home. She took the sample to her fertility doctor in Hot Springs, who used it
for the second artificial insemination procedure. Before long, Sarah was thrilled to learn that she
was expecting boy-girl twins.
She had a healthy pregnancy, and the twins were born on October 18, 2009. During the last
couple of months of her pregnancy, she became concerned about David’s increasing level of
interest in playing a role in raising the children. In fact, he even moved from Mountain Home to
North Little Rock to be closer to them. David’s relationship with his same-sex partner became
tense, and Sarah was concerned that David was focusing too much on the anticipated arrival of the
twins. The day they were born, he showed up at Arkansas Children’s Hospital in Little Rock and

2. insisted on seeing his “little darlings.” But he was unsuccessful. It seems that Sarah had told the
hospital nurses to keep him away from the babies because she did not want him to establish a bond
with the children.
David was quite upset when he was not allowed to see the children at the hospital on the
day they were born. He promptly filed a paternity action against Sarah, asking the court to confirm
that he is the twins’ father using a blood sample. He also wants the court to change the children’s
last name to Covington. Sarah has filed a motion to dismiss Covington’s paternity action for lack
of standing. Sarah’s counsel apparently want to be sure that our client has no parental rights, so
even if the court denies the motion to dismiss, we expect our client to argue forcefully on the merits
that he indeed has parental rights to joint custody or at least regular visitation.
Please review the attached pleadings thoroughly and research the primary legal issues. We
are expecting a ruling from the judge before too long on Warren’s Motion to Dismiss. In the
meantime, I would like you to review our file and predict how you think the court will rule on the
motion. If the court grants the motion to dismiss, David wants us to be prepared to appeal the
ruling immediately. If the court denies the motion, David wants us to advise him on his chances of
prevailing on the merits before the trial court. Specifically, if the court denies Warren’s motion to
dismiss, how do you predict the court will rule on the merits of the case? Specifically, is our client
entitled to shared custody or visitation? As the sperm donor, is he entitled to request a court order
directing that his name be listed on the children’s birth certificates as their natural father?
The facts are not in dispute. After researching the relevant authorities, please write an
office memo addressing the legal issues. Please prepare a draft of your memo, not to exceed ten
pages, double-spaced. Your memo should follow the standard format for office memoranda
discussed in the Edwards text, including the appropriate headings. Please use 12-point Times New
Roman font and at least 1-inch margins on all four sides, and please double-space your memo.
Your completed memo should be approximately 8-10 pages in length. I will not read past the end
of the tenth page, so be sure you include all required memo components within that overall page
limit. Your memo, including the Question Presented, Brief Answer, Facts, Discussion, and
Conclusion, is due no later than the beginning of class on November 30.
In preparing your office memo, please cite primary and secondary authorities consistent
with the ALWD citation manual. You may discuss the research materials and your analysis with
other students who are working on the same open research memo assignment. However, you may
not discuss the assignment or any of the materials with anyone else – including other law students,
your parents, your lawyer, your roommate, or your significant other. In addition, you may not
show your written work to anyone, including your classmates in this course. Writing, revising,
editing, and proofreading of your memo must be done by you alone. Any departure from these
requirements will be considered a violation of the Honor Code and handled accordingly.
2