## Facts

- An unmarried couple had a long-term intimate relationship; the man was later alleged to have misrepresented his identity and marital status.
- The woman wanted children; after unsuccessful attempts to conceive, it appeared the man could not biologically father a child.
- The man allegedly proposed heterologous artificial insemination using an anonymous donor and promised to provide financial support for any resulting child.
- The woman underwent donor insemination and gave birth to twin boys.
- The woman alleged the man participated in the fertility process, paid some costs, and acted as a father to the twins before ending the relationship and refusing support.
- The woman sued individually and on behalf of the twins, asserting (1) breach of express contract, (2) promissory estoppel, and (3) statutory child support by establishing parentage under the Illinois Parentage Act of 1984.
- The trial court dismissed all counts on a combined motion to dismiss; the appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Illinois Parentage Act of 1984 provides the exclusive means to obtain child support, thereby barring common-law contract and promissory-estoppel claims seeking support for children conceived by donor insemination.
2. Whether the Parentage Act permits establishing a father-child relationship, and thus statutory support, against an unmarried, nonbiological former partner in an anonymous-donor insemination context.
3. Whether public policy or the Statute of Frauds required dismissal of the alleged contract and promissory-estoppel support claims at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- The court held the Parentage Act did not preempt common-law claims seeking child support based on an alleged promise to support children conceived through donor insemination.
- The court held the complaint could not establish the man’s legal parentage under the Parentage Act because he was not the biological father and no statutory presumption or statutory route to paternity applied.
- The court ruled dismissal of the contract and promissory-estoppel counts was improper at the pleading stage, rejecting Parentage Act exclusivity and concluding that public policy and Statute of Frauds defenses did not justify dismissal on the face of the complaint.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the common-law claims.

## Legal Principles

- The Illinois Parentage Act of 1984 does not, by implication, extinguish common-law theories that impose child-support obligations independent of statutory parentage.
- A person who is not a “father” under the Parentage Act may still face an enforceable support obligation arising from voluntary undertakings such as an alleged contract or promissory estoppel.
- In a donor-insemination setting involving an unmarried, nonbiological partner, statutory parentage requires satisfaction of the Act’s specified presumptions or procedures; absent those, parentage cannot be established under the Act.
- On a motion to dismiss, well-pleaded allegations and reasonable inferences are taken as true; defenses such as public policy or Statute of Frauds generally do not warrant dismissal unless the complaint conclusively establishes them as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held that statutory parentage could not be imposed on a nonbiological, unmarried former partner under the Parentage Act on these allegations, but it allowed the children’s support claims to proceed under common-law contract and promissory-estoppel theories based on an alleged promise to support children conceived through anonymous donor insemination.


In re Parentage of M.J., 787 N.E.2d 144 (Ill. 2003)