On March 20, 2025, in the case of Glover v. Junior, No. 9 EAP 2024 (Pa. Mar. 20, 2025), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recognized intent-based parentage as a legal pathway to parentage. Prior to this decision, in Pennsylvania there were “four pathways to establish legal parentage: biology, adoption, equity (i.e., parentage by a marital presumption or estoppel), and contract, where a child is born using Assistive Reproductive Technology (ART).” In Glover v. Junior, none of these pathways applied to the facts of the case. Glover and Junior were a married same-sex couple who intentionally conceived a child during their marriage using ART, through the use of a sperm donor. Among other efforts, the parties sought joint legal representation for an anticipated step-parent adoption, including the signing of Affidavits expressing their intent for the adoption, and the parties both signed an IVF contract. The parties separated prior to the birth of the child, and this litigation resulted. The Court found that “a formerly married couple endeavored – while still married – to conceive and raise a child together, and they invested many months and significant financial, emotional, and physical resources to jointly bring a child into the world.”
Through the decision, the Court discussed the history of parentage in Pennsylvania as well as in other states. The concept of intent-based parentage is not new, but it was not previously accepted in Pennsylvania. It has been accepted in other states, both through common law and through the Uniform Parentage Act, and legislation regarding intent-based parentage has been introduced in the Pennsylvania legislature.
The Court also acknowledged that the definitions of “who is a parent” and “what is a family” continue to change, but did not believe that a case to adopt intent-based parentage was previously before them. They acknowledged that the four already acknowledged pathways to legal parentage were insufficient to cover all families who grew their families using ART, such as Glover and Junior’s family. As such, the court adopted intent-based parentage based upon the facts of this case.
The expansion of the pathways to legal parentage are consistent with the objective of the existing law: “Pennsylvania law plainly seeks to protect children.” This includes “the importance of love and stability for the child” as well as “providing private sources of financial support” (parents with a legal duty to financially support their child). The Court also acknowledged the rights of parents, including “[t]he liberty interest…of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children” which is a “fundamental liberty interest.” The Court summed up the public policy and found that intent based parentage in ART was consistent: “Pennsylvania law primarily aims to protect the interest of children, and accordingly recognizes parentage encompasses duties and obligations as well as privileges.” “In terms of stability and support, intent-based parentage in the ART context could provide a second source of love, care, and support – both emotional and financial.” The Court went on to state that “it is apparent that in some ways, parents who conceive using ART essentially demonstrate their stability and dedication to a child by going through a more rigorous, time consuming, and expensive process to conceive a child than do many parents who conceive through sexual intercourse.”
The Court found that the child at issue only existed because of both parties in this case and held “that parentage may be established by proof of intent shared by two parties to use ART to conceive and co-parent a child together, even without meeting all the formalities of contract law.” The Court did consider the fact that the parties were married, but did not make that a requirement for intent-based parentage, although it left the door open for the law to develop and adopt a presumption in the future. At this time, “courts undertaking an intent-based parentage analysis should consider all evidence from all relevant time periods – including, when applicable, pre-conception, during conception, during gestation, during birth, and post-birth – to determine whether the parties jointly undertook ART intending to conceive and co-parent the child together.” Despite the holding in this case, the Court “nevertheless encourages couples in similar circumstances to document their intentions in writing” and, while not required, “partners in a couple could contract with each other to have a child together.”
This case provides important rights for parents and children, as well as suggestions, for cases in which same-sex parents seek to grow their family utilizing ART. It is important for those families to be aware of this new development in the law. We will have to wait and see how intent-based parentage law continues to develop in the courts and if the Uniform Parentage Act is passed by the Pennsylvania legislature. If you believe that this case applies to your family, please reach out to AMM for a consultation with one of our family law attorneys so we can be of assistance.
Elizabeth Fineman practices exclusively in Family Law. Visit the practice page to learn more about AMM Law’s Family Law Services.