## Facts

- A married couple discussed having a child and consulted a clinic about artificial insemination.
- At the clinic, the husband stated in the wife’s presence that he did not want to participate and did not consent to artificial insemination.
- The wife later returned alone, underwent donor insemination without the husband’s authorization or signature, and became pregnant.
- Testing confirmed the husband was not the child’s biological father.
- In dissolution proceedings, the wife sought to require the husband to pay child support for the child.
- The dispute turned on section 3 of the Illinois Parentage Act of 1984, which treats a husband as the natural father if he consents to his wife’s insemination, and requires consent to be in writing signed by both spouses.

## Issues

1. Whether a husband can be treated as the legal father under section 3 of the Illinois Parentage Act when donor insemination occurred without his written consent and against his express refusal.
2. Whether equitable doctrines (including estoppel or waiver) can impose legal fatherhood and a support obligation despite the absence of written consent when the husband did not mislead or induce the insemination.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
- The husband was not the child’s legal father under section 3 and could not be ordered to pay child support on these facts.
- The statutory requirement of written consent was not satisfied, and the record showed no actual consent; the husband expressly objected.
- Equitable estoppel or waiver did not apply because the husband did not engage in conduct that misrepresented consent or caused reliance leading to the insemination.

## Legal Principles

- Under section 3 of the Illinois Parentage Act, a husband is treated as the natural father of a child conceived by artificial insemination only when he consents as required by the statute, including written consent signed by both spouses.
- Lack of written consent does not automatically foreclose equitable parentage theories in every case, but estoppel or waiver requires facts showing misleading conduct and reliance.
- When a husband clearly refuses consent and does not induce the insemination, courts will not impose legal fatherhood and child-support obligations through equity alone.

## Conclusion

The court held that donor insemination performed without the husband’s written consent and in the face of his express refusal did not make him the child’s legal father, and the absence of misleading conduct or reliance barred imposing support through estoppel or waiver.


In re Marriage of Witbeck-Wildhagen, 281 Ill. App. 3d 502, 667 N.E.2d 122 (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. 1996)