Facts
- D.M.T. and T.M.H. were in a long-term same-sex relationship and agreed to conceive and raise a child together as equal parents.
- The couple used assisted reproductive technology: T.M.H. provided the ovum, and D.M.T. carried the pregnancy and gave birth.
- After the child’s birth, the parties gave the child a hyphenated surname and jointly raised the child for several years.
- The birth certificate listed only D.M.T., but genetic testing showed a 99.9% probability that T.M.H. was the biological mother.
- After the relationship ended, D.M.T. cut off T.M.H.’s contact with the child and took the child away.
- T.M.H. petitioned to establish parental rights and challenged the application of Fla. Stat. § 742.14, which provides that an egg or sperm “donor” relinquishes parental rights unless part of a statutory “commissioning couple” defined as an intended mother and father.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to D.M.T., treating T.M.H. as an egg donor who relinquished parental rights by operation of § 742.14.
- The Fifth District reversed, holding the statute unconstitutional as applied and certifying a question of great public importance.
Issues
- Whether Fla. Stat. § 742.14 is unconstitutional as applied when it treats a genetic mother in a same-sex relationship as a “donor” who automatically relinquishes parental rights despite mutual intent to co-parent and years of parenting.
- Whether applying § 742.14 in this context violates due process and Florida’s constitutional privacy right by extinguishing a fundamental right to parent without adequate justification.
- Whether applying § 742.14 violates equal protection by denying same-sex couples protections available to heterosexual unmarried couples using assisted reproductive technology.
- Whether clinic consent forms describing T.M.H. as a donor constituted a waiver of her parental rights.
Decision
- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth District in a 4–3 decision.
- The Court held § 742.14 unconstitutional as applied because it operated to terminate T.M.H.’s constitutionally protected parental interest despite her genetic link, intent to parent, and established parental relationship.
- The Court held the statute, as applied, violated equal protection because it afforded heterosexual unmarried couples a route to avoid automatic relinquishment (via the “intended mother and father” definition) while categorically excluding same-sex couples.
- The Court rejected waiver based on clinic forms, finding they did not reflect a knowing and voluntary relinquishment in a situation where the egg provider intended to co-parent in a committed relationship.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with recognizing T.M.H.’s parental rights.
Legal Principles
- A biological parent who demonstrates commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood can possess a constitutionally protected parental interest.
- Florida’s explicit constitutional privacy right, together with due process protections, limits the State’s ability to automatically extinguish an established parent-child relationship.
- A statute that conditions preservation of parental rights on a definition that same-sex couples cannot satisfy may violate equal protection when it results in disparate treatment without sufficient justification.
- Boilerplate fertility-clinic consent documents describing a party as a “donor” do not, without more, establish a knowing and voluntary waiver of parental rights when the parties intended joint parenting and acted consistently with that intent.
- In parentage disputes involving assisted reproduction, courts may consider intent and actual parenting conduct in evaluating asserted parental rights and constitutional protections.
Conclusion
The Florida Supreme Court held that applying Florida’s assisted reproduction donor-relief statute to automatically strip a genetic mother in a same-sex relationship of parental rights was unconstitutional as applied and violated equal protection, and it further held that clinic consent forms did not waive the genetic mother’s parental claim where the parties intended and carried out joint parenting.