## Facts

- An unmarried heterosexual couple pursued in vitro fertilization using the man’s sperm and oocytes from an anonymous donor, with embryos implanted in the woman’s uterus.
- Before embryo transfer, the parties signed clinic documents reflecting the woman’s intent to be the mother of any resulting child.
- Two embryos were transferred; one split, and the woman gave birth to triplets.
- The children had a genetic link to the man and the anonymous egg donor, but not to the woman who carried and delivered them.
- After the relationship ended, the woman filed a parentage action seeking a declaration of maternity, custody, and child support.
- The man argued the woman lacked standing and could not be a parent under Tennessee statutes because she had no genetic connection, and he sought sole custody.

## Issues

1. Whether a woman who gestates and gives birth to children conceived with an anonymous donor’s oocytes and her male partner’s sperm, but who lacks a genetic connection, may be recognized as the children’s legal mother under Tennessee law.
2. Whether maternity in this setting can rest on a broad preconception “intent test” or equitable estoppel against the genetic father.
3. What criteria govern legal maternity when Tennessee’s parentage statutes do not expressly address separated genetic and gestational roles and no genetic mother asserts a competing claim.

## Decision

- The court affirmed that the woman was the children’s legal mother and upheld the custody, visitation, and child support determinations.
- The court vacated the intermediate court’s adoption of a broad “intent test” for maternity.
- The court vacated the intermediate court’s holding that the man was estopped from denying the woman’s maternal status.
- The court limited its ruling to the case’s specific facts and declined to resolve disputes involving competing claims by a genetic mother or surrogate arrangements.

## Legal Principles

- When parentage statutes do not expressly govern assisted reproduction in which genetic and gestational roles are divided, a court may determine maternity using a fact-specific analysis to avoid leaving children without a legal mother.
- Preconception intent is not, by itself, a freestanding rule for maternity; intent may be considered as one factor among others.
- Equitable estoppel is not a substitute for establishing legal maternity in this context.
- Legal maternity may be recognized for a non-genetic woman based on the combined presence of: (1) the parties’ prebirth agreement and bona fide intent that she would be the legal mother and accept parental rights and responsibilities; (2) her pregnancy, carrying to term, and giving birth as her own; and (3) the absence of a competing claim by a genetic mother and the absence of a surrogate-versus-intended-mother controversy.

## Conclusion

The court held that the gestational woman who intentionally undertook parenthood and gave birth was the children’s legal mother, while rejecting broad rules that would make intent or estoppel alone determinative and limiting the decision to circumstances without competing maternal claims.


In re C.K.G., 173 S.W.3d 714 (Tenn. 2005)