## Facts

- Husband and wife married in Boston in 1991 and separated in 2000 after years of unsuccessful attempts to conceive.
- In 2001, while separated, the wife sought to proceed with IVF using donor eggs and donor sperm.
- After mediation by a family friend, the parties signed a handwritten December 20, 2001 agreement stating the husband consented to fertility treatment and would “recognize any offspring,” while also stating he would have no financial obligations and the wife would not seek additional financial obligations related to the treatment or its results.
- The wife underwent multiple IVF cycles; the husband signed clinic consent forms for the procedures and often noted he was signing pursuant to the 2001 agreement.
- Twins were born May 12, 2003, conceived through IVF using donor sperm and donor eggs; the husband had no genetic relationship to the children.
- In a 2009 divorce judgment following a bench trial, the Probate and Family Court ruled the husband was the legal father under G.L. c. 46, § 4B and ordered him to pay child support.
- The husband appealed, contesting legal parentage and the child support calculation, arguing his consent was conditional and procured by duress or fraud.

## Issues

1. Whether a husband who consented to IVF using donor gametes is the legal father under G.L. c. 46, § 4B, notwithstanding lack of genetic connection and a purported waiver of financial responsibility.
2. Whether the husband’s consent was invalid or voidable due to alleged duress or fraud.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in calculating child support, including its treatment of the wife’s income.

## Decision

- The Appeals Court affirmed the divorce judgment.
- The court held the husband was the legal father under G.L. c. 46, § 4B because he consented to the assisted reproduction that resulted in the twins’ birth.
- The court rejected the husband’s argument that his consent was ineffective because it was “conditional” on no legal or financial responsibility.
- The court rejected the duress and fraud challenges based on waiver (insufficient appellate development) and deference to the trial judge’s credibility findings.
- The court held there was no abuse of discretion in the child support determination, including the income calculation.

## Legal Principles

- Under G.L. c. 46, § 4B, a child born to a married woman as a result of artificial insemination with the husband’s consent is the legitimate child of the husband and wife; consent to the procedure, with knowledge a child may result, establishes legal parentage.
- Assisted reproduction involving IVF and donor gametes may fall within the scope of “artificial insemination” for purposes of § 4B; genetic connection is not required when statutory consent is established.
- A spouse’s attempt to condition consent on avoiding parental obligations cannot defeat statutory parentage and the attendant duty of support.
- Appellate courts defer to trial judges’ credibility determinations and findings of fact; inadequately briefed appellate arguments may be treated as waived.
- Child support determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion or clear error; reliance on tax returns and reasonable expense deductions may support the income findings used to apply guidelines.

## Conclusion

The Appeals Court held that the husband’s knowing consent to IVF leading to the children’s birth made him their legal father under G.L. c. 46, § 4B, and it affirmed the child support order because the consent could not be limited by a private waiver and the trial court’s findings and support calculation were not erroneous.


Okoli v. Okoli, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 371, 963 N.E.2d 730 (2012)