[Red Badger]

According to the article, all she did was check boxes on a website...............Now, the contract was with ‘her’ but not her child. She has wiggle room...............

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Yes.
And, when you were installing that Facebook app...?

[1Old Pro]

According to the article, all she did was check boxes on a website...............Now, the contract was with ‘her’ but not her child. She has wiggle room............…

I heard she contacted the donor via email or text saying they were open to communication an the person responded with something like WTF?

[The Pack Knight]

According to the article, all she did was check boxes on a website...............Now, the contract was with ‘her’ but not her child. She has wiggle room...............

Not sure what your point is. A contract formed by checking boxes on a website is just as binding as one signed on physical paper, and in both circumstances the party signing is charged with knowledge of all the written terms whether she read them or not.

And I'm not sure what wiggle room she has from the fact that the contract was with her and not her child. Her child didn't breach the contract, she did. Her child isn't being deprived of the other sperm, she is. Her child has never had any rights in the now-withheld sperm, and thus has suffered no legal injury nor been deprived of any contractual benefit to which she was ever entitled.