912 P.2d 290 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996)
Arlene Daniels Lane and Terrence M. Lane married on December 4, 1984.1 Husband had undergone a vasectomy in 1980 after having three children from two previous marriages.2 Shortly after the marriage Wife expressed a desire to have children, and after Husband refused to reverse his vasectomy the couple explored options including artificial insemination from an anonymous donor.3
They first obtained assistance from a personal physician and then from the University of New Mexico Hospital.4 Husband participated in the process by driving Wife to some medical visits, attending birthing classes, and being present in the delivery room.5 Colleen Lane was born on August 26, 1988.6 The hospital's customary practice required a signed consent form from both spouses, yet the only document in the record is one signed solely by Wife from her prior physician, and no additional consent form appears in the hospital files or New Mexico Bureau of Vital Records and Health Statistics.7
After the birth both parties told friends and relatives that Husband was Colleen's natural father, and Husband's name appears on her birth certificate.8 On May 10, 1991 Husband filed a verified petition to dissolve the marriage alleging that Colleen was a child of the marriage.9 Wife's verified response admitted that Colleen was a child of the marriage and did not challenge Husband's paternity, though she requested sole custody.10
The attorneys for both parties approved a stipulated order on March 26, 1992 stating that the parties agree and stipulate they are the parents of Colleen Dawn Lane born August 26, 1988.11 In February 1993 Wife's new attorney moved for leave to file an amended response alleging for the first time that Colleen had been conceived through artificial insemination and that Husband was neither her natural nor legal father.12 After trial on paternity and custody the district court awarded joint custody in July 1993 and entered a final order on February 7, 1995.13 Wife appealed.14
Whether a husband can be treated as the natural father of a child conceived through his wife's artificial insemination when the written consent requirements of the New Mexico Parentage Act were not strictly followed?15
Under New Mexico law, the parent and child relationship may be established pursuant to the New Mexico Parentage Act.16 Section 40-11-6(A) provides that if a wife is artificially inseminated under a physician’s supervision with her husband’s consent, the husband is treated as the natural father so long as the consent is in writing and signed by both spouses. The physician’s failure to certify or file the consent does not affect the relationship.17 Nevertheless, the doctrine of substantial compliance permits a court to determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently to carry out its intent and accomplish its reasonable objectives when exceptional circumstances exist.18
Yes. The essential policy of Section 40-11-6(A) is honored when both spouses approve the artificial insemination and wish the husband to be treated as the natural father.19 The verified petition filed by Husband alleged that Colleen was a child of the marriage.20 Wife’s verified response admitted the allegation and did not contest paternity.21
The stipulated order signed by counsel for both parties expressly stated that the parties are the parents of Colleen.22 These documents, executed more than two years after the birth, demonstrate that both Husband and Wife knowingly consented to treating Husband as Colleen’s natural father even after the marriage had deteriorated.23 The evidentiary and cautionary purposes of the writing requirement are therefore satisfied by the pleadings, which unequivocally establish the parties’ mutual understanding and agreement.24
Husband is treated as the natural father of Colleen under the doctrine of substantial compliance with the New Mexico Parentage Act.25