Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller celebrates a landmark decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court protecting the legal rights of families who conceive through assisted reproductive technology.
In a 54-page precedential opinion issued March 20, the high court for the first time adopted the doctrine of “intent-based parentage” as the uniform legal standard for establishing parentage for people who do not share a biological tie with their children. The decision comes as a hard-fought victory for LGBTQ+ families who have long advocated for the same rights and protections as those who conceive naturally.
“This Supreme Court has finally clearly spelled out how to define a parent in Pennsylvania. It does not limit or foreclose on the ability for one to establish parentage by contract, equitable principles or by intent,” said shareholder Helen Casale, who represented the Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers in friend-of-the-court filings. “It is an important decision in continuing to protect the families and most of all the children of Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court should be commended for putting families and children first.”
Because Pennsylvania lacks a comprehensive statute defining parentage, for decades courts have relied primarily on marital status and biology in assessing parental rights. These gaps in the law have failed to address the use of increasingly common methods of assisted reproduction, such as surrogacy and in vitro fertilization, and have contributed to a painful sense of uncertainty for both parents and children.
The Supreme Court’s ruling came in a parentage action brought by Nicole Junior, a non-biological mother who petitioned for pre-birth establishment of parentage for a child she conceived with her now-separated wife, Chanel Glover, via in vitro fertilization. As detailed in court filings, the couple had jointly sought fertility treatments even hired a law firm to protect their interests, signing affidavits affirming their intention for Junior to be a legal parent to the child. However, the relationship between Junior and Glover deteriorated, and the pair separated prior to the child’s birth.
A trial judge initially granted Junior’s petition, but a three-judge appellate panel later reversed the decision, finding the parties lacked an enforceable written agreement establishing Junior’s parental rights. An en banc majority of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania later reversed the panel decision, setting up an appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Junior was represented by Megan Watson of BKW Family Law in Philadelphia, who argued the high court appeal on September 11, 2024.
Casale said the Supreme Court’s ruling went beyond the traditional principles of a contract-based right to parentage to establish much-needed protections for all parents who intend to raise a family together. Crucially, she argued in court filings, legal recognition of a non-biological parent ensures that a child’s relationship with a loving non-biological parent cannot be arbitrarily severed in the event of separation or divorce and would prevent a parent from walking away from their obligations to support their child.
The Hangley Aronchick team also included associate Kyle Victor. The case, before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, was captioned Glover v. Junior.
Read coverage of the case in The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Legal Intelligencer, LGBTQ+ Nation and MSN.
