Pennsylvania court reverses ruling that excluded nonbiological parent

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has ruled that two women who concieved a child via IVF during their marriage are both legal parents, despite only one being the genetic and gestational mother.

The verdict could have broad implications for other LGBTQ+ families, and those who used donated eggs, sperm, or embryos to create their families. Among the reasons given by the court was that the non-genetic mother had a 'shared emotional role' in the conception, as well as financial input, but most importantly that the couple had intended to both be parents.

'The couple not only evidenced their mutual intent to conceive and raise the child, but they also participated jointly in the process of creating a new life,' said the decision, written by Judge Mary Jane Bowes from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Nicole Junior and Chanel Glover began IVF the same month as their wedding in 2021, agreeing that Glover would carry the pregnancy and selecting a sperm donor whose heritage and characteristics were similar to Junior's. However, their relationship broke down during the pregnancy, and Junior has not met the child who was born in 2022.

During their treatment, the couple signed documents together, such as with the fertility clinic and sperm bank, as well as beginning an application for second-parent adoption to ensure both would be regarded as legal parents in all jurisdictions.

Pennsylvania law does contain an assumption, as in English law, that a child born within marriage is a legitimate child of both parties, but there was debate about whether this applies, because the parties had separated before the birth.

Initially, a trial court granted Junior parental recognition, but Glover appealed and the ruling was overturned by a three-judge panel on the Superior Court who decided that these documents did not constitute a written agreement. Judge Bowes was on that panel, and disagreed with the other two judges.

The latest ruling was from a reconvened panel of all the Superior Court Judges. They agreed that although there was no enforceable written contract between the women, there was evidence that an enforceable oral contract had existed, that Junior would be recognised as a parent to the child.

'I want him to know that he was intentional,' Junior said of her son. 'He was intended. We wanted him. We both did.'

Glover is hoping to appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but it is not yet clear whether they will hear the case.