A historic ruling released today from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will make it significantly easier for LGBTQ+ parents in the state to secure legal rights over their children.

The ruling established “intent-based parentage” as a new path to legal parenthood, allowing someone to prove legal parentage based on evidence of intent to be a child’s parent, regardless of whether or not there is biological relation or written contracts in place.

Related

6 organizations building community for queer families & prospective parents
Family building can be overwhelming. These organizations are here to help.

The ruling occurred in the case of Chanel Glover v. Nicole Junior. The former couple went through the entire in vitro fertilization (IVF) process together, splitting the massive costs to help Glover get pregnant, co-signing contracts, and establishing Junior as the intended co-parent. They also worked on paperwork for Junior to obtain a second-parent adoption.

Stay connected to your community

Connect with the issues and events that impact your community at home and beyond by subscribing to our newsletter.
Subscribe to our Newsletter today

But the couple experienced trouble in their marriage when Glover was about halfway through the pregnancy. Once Junior moved out, Glover declared she wanted to be a single mom and that Junior would not be allowed any contact with the baby.

Junior petitioned to be recognized as the baby’s parent, a lower court agreed that she deserved to be, as the couple had participated in the conception of the baby together.

Glover accused Junior of inflicting emotional harm and volatile behavior, but Junior denied the accusations. The judge said accusations of emotional harm also do not have a bearing on parental rights and could be discussed in a future custody hearing.

Glover appealed the judge’s decision just before the baby was born, and in August 2023, a panel of nine judges on the Pennsylvania Superior Court unanimously determined that Junior deserved full co-parental rights due to the couple’s “intent-based parentage.”

The decision declared, “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.”

Glover then fought for the Supreme Court to take the case.

The Court’s ruling explained that the child “would not have been born if Glover and Junior had not intentionally endeavored together to conceive and raise a child.”

“Indeed, the parties chose their specific sperm donor based on his similarities to Junior, and conceived Child at a specific time and place based on the context of their relationship and joint contributions to the ART [assisted reproductive technology] process. Even if Glover chose to conceive a child by herself, it is highly unlikely the same exact sperm and ovum would have been used,” the Court pointed out. “Thus, Child exists because of both Glover and Junior.”

The ruling continued, “We will not require those parents who use ART to transact or bargain with each other. The decision made within a loving couple to have a baby is generally not a quid pro quo, and we decline
to put courts in the position of parsing through couples’ actions to determine whether they were done gratuitously or as an exchange for consideration. We prefer to recognize a more dignified means to establish parentage for couples who use ART to conceive.”

The ruling also emphasized that the establishment of intent-based parentage doesn’t mean couples shouldn’t put their intentions in writing when possible.

“Such writings (like the affidavits in this case) provide strong evidence of intent should a dispute arise,” the ruling explained, “even if the writings do not meet the elements of a contract.”

Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.