## Facts

- T.M.H. and D.M.T. were in a committed same-sex relationship.
- The couple agreed that T.M.H. would provide ova for IVF, D.M.T. would carry the pregnancy, and both would raise and support the resulting child as parents.
- An embryo created using T.M.H.’s egg was implanted in D.M.T., who carried the pregnancy and gave birth.
- The parties co-parented the child for several years.
- After the relationship ended, D.M.T. cut off contact between T.M.H. and the child and later relocated abroad with the child.
- T.M.H. sued to establish parental rights; the trial court treated T.M.H. as an “egg donor” under Florida Statutes § 742.14 and ruled that only D.M.T. had parental rights.
- T.M.H. appealed, challenging both the statute’s application and its constitutionality as applied.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida Statutes § 742.14 applies to a woman who provided ova to her partner under a mutual plan to co-parent, such that she is deemed a “donor” who relinquished parental rights.
2. If § 742.14 is interpreted to extinguish her parental rights in these circumstances, whether that application violates constitutional protections for parental rights.

## Decision

- The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded.
- The court held § 742.14 did not apply to T.M.H. because she was not a “donor” in the statutory sense where the parties intended she would be a parent and she did not intend to relinquish parental rights.
- The court further held, in the alternative, that applying § 742.14 to terminate T.M.H.’s parental rights would be unconstitutional as applied because it would burden a biological parent’s fundamental right to parent without the usual safeguards associated with termination of parental rights.

## Legal Principles

- Donor statutes addressing assisted reproduction are construed in light of statutory purpose; “donor” status generally presumes intent to relinquish parental rights and avoid a parent-child relationship.
- Courts may construe a statute to avoid serious constitutional problems where the statutory text and purpose reasonably allow such a construction.
- Biological parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and companionship of their children; state action that effectively terminates parental rights typically requires robust procedural protections and individualized justification.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that an IVF egg provider who intended to co-parent and actually parented the child could not be treated as a rights-relinquishing “donor” under § 742.14; and if the statute were read to strip her parental status automatically, it would be unconstitutional as applied, requiring reversal of the judgment denying her parental rights.


T.M.H. v. D.M.T., 79 So. 3d 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)