## Facts

- H.M. (the child’s biological mother) and E.T. (her former same-sex partner) were in a relationship in New York, cohabiting for much of 1989–1995.
- The parties allegedly planned to conceive and raise a child together, including discussion of conception methods and shared parenting.
- In 1993, H.M. became pregnant by donor insemination; E.T. allegedly performed the insemination procedure.
- The child was born in September 1994; E.T. was present at the birth, cut the umbilical cord, and the parties allegedly shared conception- and birth-related expenses.
- Several months after the birth, E.T. ended the relationship, and H.M. moved with the child to Montreal; E.T. later provided gifts and some monetary contributions at unspecified times.
- In 2006, H.M. sought a parentage declaration and child support in Ontario; the matter was transferred to New York, leading to a UIFSA-based child support petition in Family Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the UIFSA child support petition stated a legally sufficient claim against a former same-sex partner who was neither a biological nor adoptive parent, based on equitable estoppel.
2. Whether the petition was time-barred.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division, on remittal, affirmed the Family Court order that sustained objections to the Support Magistrate’s dismissal and reinstated the petition for a hearing.
- The court held the petition adequately stated a cause of action for child support premised on equitable estoppel, assuming the allegations as true and granting favorable inferences at the pleading stage.
- The court held the petition was not time-barred.
- The court reinstated subsequent Family Court orders dated March 25, 2008, and February 9, 2009.

## Legal Principles

- On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court must accept pleaded facts as true and give the petitioner the benefit of favorable inferences; credibility and proof are not assessed at that stage.
- Equitable estoppel may be used in child support matters to prevent a putative parent from denying responsibility where their conduct or assurances induced reliance resulting in detriment.
- In the child support context, reliance for equitable estoppel is not limited to the child’s reliance, and an emotional bond between child and putative parent is not a required element at the pleading stage.
- A former same-sex partner may be subject to a child support claim based on equitable estoppel where the petition alleges conception and child-rearing decisions were made in reliance on the partner’s promise of support and co-parenting.
- A UIFSA-based support proceeding is not barred solely by the passage of time where no applicable limitations bar is shown.

## Conclusion

The court held that allegations that a former same-sex partner promised support, participated in conception and birth-related decisions, and induced the biological mother to conceive by donor insemination were sufficient to plead equitable estoppel and proceed to a hearing on child support, and that the petition was not time-barred.


Matter of H.M. v. E.T., 76 A.D.3d 528 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2010)