Also known as:legal parentage · legal parent · legal parents · parentage
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The legal status of an individual as a parent of a child conceived by assisted reproduction. This status is determined under the Uniform Probate Code or equivalent state parentage statutes when a gestational surrogate or sperm donor is involved. It determines rights to custody, support, inheritance, and benefits.
See Our Sources· 9 primary sources
Cases
Uniform Acts
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Surrogate Birth Under Probate Code
Logan Lane and Lila Lin entered a gestational surrogacy agreement with a carrier who delivered their child. After birth the probate court applied the Uniform Probate Code rule to determine that Logan and Lila hold legal parenthood. The carrier therefore has no parental status and the child inherits from Logan and Lila under the will.
Sperm Donor Without Written Agreement
Luke Latham provided sperm to his friend Lorenzo Lugo under an informal arrangement with no signed writing. After the child was born Luke sought recognition as a legal parent. The Kansas court held that the absence of a written agreement preserving donor rights left Luke without legal parenthood.
Luis Lopez and Lance Lee married in a state recognizing same-sex unions and later had a child through assisted reproduction. When one spouse sought to dissolve the marriage the court treated both as legal parents with equal rights to custody and support.
Obergefell v. Hodges576 U.S. 644 (2015)
The petitioners were fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners were deceased. They lived in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. Those states defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman under their constitutions and statutes.
The petitioners filed suits in federal district courts in their home states. They sought marriage licenses or recognition of marriages lawfully performed elsewhere. James Obergefell and John Arthur traveled from Ohio to Maryland to marry aboard a medical transport plane because Arthur suffered from ALS; Obergefell later sought to be listed as surviving spouse on Arthur's death certificate. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, Michigan nurses, adopted three children but could not both serve as legal parents under state adoption rules. Army Reserve Sergeant Ijpe DeKoe and Thomas Kostura married in New York before DeKoe's deployment to Afghanistan and later settled in Tennessee.
Each district court ruled in the petitioners' favor. The respondents appealed. The Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed the district court judgments. The petitioners sought certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted.
Same-sex couples had begun establishing families after substantial cultural and political developments in the late twentieth century. Earlier litigation had addressed the legal status of gays and lesbians, including challenges that reached the Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas.
After Landmark Realty owner died his widow used preserved gametes to conceive twins. The Social Security Administration initially denied survivor benefits but the Supreme Court ruled that legal parenthood could be established under state intestacy law for the posthumously conceived children.
Astrue v. Capato ex rel. B.N.C.132 S. Ct. 2021 (2012)
Karen Capato married Robert Capato in May 1999. Shortly thereafter, Robert was diagnosed with esophageal cancer and was told that the chemotherapy he required might render him sterile. Because the couple wanted children, Robert deposited his semen in a sperm bank before undergoing chemotherapy. Despite Robert's treatment, Karen conceived naturally and gave birth to a son in August 2001.
Robert's health deteriorated in late 2001, and he died in Florida in March 2002. His will, executed in Florida, named as beneficiaries the son born of his marriage to Karen and two children from a previous marriage, but made no provision for children conceived after his death. Shortly after Robert's death, Karen began in vitro fertilization using her husband's frozen sperm. She conceived in January 2003 and gave birth to twins in September 2003, eighteen months after Robert's death.
Karen Capato claimed survivors insurance benefits on behalf of the twins. The Social Security Administration denied her application. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey affirmed the agency's decision. The court determined that the twins would qualify for benefits only if they could inherit from the deceased wage earner under Florida intestacy law.
Under Florida law, a child born posthumously may inherit only if conceived during the decedent's lifetime. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. It concluded that the undisputed biological children of a deceased wage earner and his widow qualify for survivors benefits without regard to state intestacy law. Courts of Appeals had divided on the question, with some circuits reaching conflicting results. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.
Lighthouse Shipping executive and his spouse divorced after storing embryos created during marriage. The Massachusetts court held that the surviving spouse could not unilaterally create legal parenthood through implantation without the deceased spouse's consent.
Woodward v. Commissioner of Social Security760 N.E.2d 257, 270 (Mass.2002)
In January 1993, Lauren Woodward and her husband Warren Woodward, who had been married for approximately three and one-half years and remained childless, learned that Warren had leukemia. The couple arranged for a quantity of Warren's semen to be medically withdrawn and preserved through a process known as sperm banking before he began treatment. Warren underwent an unsuccessful bone marrow transplant and died in October 1993, after which Lauren was appointed administratrix of his estate.
In October 1995, Lauren gave birth to twin girls who had been conceived through artificial insemination using Warren's preserved semen. In January 1996, she applied to the Social Security Administration for child's insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 402(d)(1) and mother's benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 402(g)(1). The SSA denied the claims on the ground that the twins were not the husband's children within the meaning of the Act.
In February 1996, while pursuing appeals from the SSA denial, Lauren filed a complaint for correction of birth record in the Probate and Family Court against the clerk of the city of Beverly, seeking to add Warren as the father on the twins' birth certificates. In October 1996, a Probate Court judge entered a judgment of paternity based on stipulations of voluntary acknowledgment of parentage and ordered the birth certificates amended to declare Warren the children's father.
An administrative law judge conducted a de novo hearing. The judge concluded that the children did not qualify for benefits because they were not entitled to inherit from Warren under Massachusetts intestacy and paternity laws. The SSA appeals council affirmed that decision. Lauren appealed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The court certified the question regarding the inheritance rights of posthumously conceived children under Massachusetts intestacy law to the Supreme Judicial Court because the parties agreed that a determination under state law was dispositive and no directly applicable precedent existed.
Lumen Capital employee faced state proceedings to terminate her parental rights after prolonged neglect. The Supreme Court required clear and convincing evidence before severing legal parenthood because the fundamental liberty interest demands heightened protection.
Santosky v. Kramer455 U.S. 745, 758-759 (1982)
In November 1973, after incidents reflecting parental neglect, respondent Kramer, Commissioner of the Ulster County Department of Social Services, initiated a neglect proceeding under the Family Court Act and removed Tina Santosky from her natural home. About ten months later, he removed John III and placed him with foster parents. On the day John was taken, Annie Santosky gave birth to a third child, Jed, who was transferred to a foster home three days later on the ground that immediate removal was necessary to avoid imminent danger to his life or health.
In October 1978, respondent petitioned the Ulster County Family Court to terminate petitioners' parental rights in the three children. Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the fair preponderance of the evidence standard specified in the Family Court Act. The Family Court Judge rejected this constitutional challenge, weighed the evidence under the statutory standard, acknowledged that the Santoskys had maintained contact with their children but found those visits at best superficial and devoid of any real emotional content, decided that the agency had made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, concluded that the Santoskys were incapable even with public assistance of planning for the future of their children, and after a dispositional hearing ruled that the best interests of the three children required permanent termination of the Santoskys' custody.
Petitioners appealed, again contesting the constitutionality of the standard of proof. The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed, holding application of the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard proper and constitutional on the ground that it recognizes and seeks to balance rights possessed by the child with those of the natural parents. The New York Court of Appeals then dismissed petitioners' appeal upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider petitioners' constitutional claim.
How does a sperm donor establish legal parenthood under Kansas law?
A sperm donor establishes legal parenthood only through a written agreement that expressly preserves donor rights. Without that writing the donor has no parental status even if genetically related to the child.
Supporting sources
505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992)
…is high during the pregnancy and often the worst abuse can be associated with pregnancy. . . . The battering husband may deny parentage and use the pregnancy as an excuse for abuse. . . . "290. Secrecy typically shrouds abusive families. Family members are instructed not to tell anyone, especially police or doctors,…