## Facts

- Kimberly McLaughlin and Suzan McLaughlin, a same-sex couple, married in California in 2008 and later moved to Arizona.
- After attempts to conceive using an anonymous sperm donor, Kimberly became pregnant through artificial insemination in 2010.
- Before the child’s birth, the spouses signed a joint parenting agreement stating Suzan was a “co-parent” and “equal parent,” with shared custody, visitation, and child-support obligations if they separated.
- Kimberly gave birth to a son, E., in 2011 while the parties were married.
- Suzan stayed home as E.’s primary caregiver while Kimberly worked outside the home.
- The relationship ended in 2013; Kimberly moved out with E. and prevented Suzan from communicating with the child.
- Suzan filed for dissolution and sought legal decision-making and parenting time; the litigation proceeded after Arizona began recognizing same-sex marriages following Obergefell.

## Issues

1. Whether A.R.S. § 25-814(A)(1)’s marital parentage presumption must be applied in a gender-neutral manner to spouses in same-sex marriages.
2. Whether the birth mother may rebut the spouse’s presumptive parentage solely by proving the spouse lacks a genetic or gestational connection to the child.
3. Whether equitable estoppel prevents the birth mother from denying the nonbiological spouse’s parental status given the parties’ conduct and agreements.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court held that A.R.S. § 25-814(A)(1)’s marital parentage presumption applies equally to same-sex spouses.
- The Court held Kimberly was equitably estopped from rebutting Suzan’s presumptive parentage based on lack of biological connection.
- The Court treated Suzan as a presumed legal parent because the spouses were validly married when E. was born.
- The Court vacated the court of appeals’ opinion but affirmed the superior court’s judgment recognizing Suzan’s parental status.

## Legal Principles

- States must provide same-sex married couples the same legal benefits and obligations linked to marriage, including parentage rules associated with marital status.
- A marital parentage presumption framed in gendered terms must be construed and applied in a gender-neutral way when required to avoid unconstitutional disparity between similarly situated married spouses.
- Even where a statutory presumption is rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence, equitable estoppel can bar a birth parent from using genetic nonparentage to disestablish the other spouse’s parentage when the birth parent intentionally induced parental reliance and a parent-child relationship formed.
- Parentage doctrines may prioritize the child’s stability and the marital family unit over purely biological criteria where the statutory scheme ties parentage to marriage and support obligations.

## Conclusion

The court required Arizona’s marital parentage presumption to extend to spouses in same-sex marriages and prevented a birth mother, under equitable estoppel, from denying her nonbiological spouse’s legal parentage after jointly planning for the child and treating the spouse as an equal parent.


McLaughlin v. Jones, 401 P.3d 492 (Ariz. 2017)