29 N.E.3d 830
Mass.2015Background
- Petitioners J.S. and V.K., a married same-sex couple, filed a joint adoption petition in Middlesex Probate and Family Court to adopt their son Nicholas, born to J.S. in 2014 via IVF using a known sperm donor.
- Nicholas's birth certificate lists the known sperm donor; petitioners are recognized in Massachusetts as Nicholas's lawful parents under G. L. c. 46, § 4B.
- Petitioners moved to proceed with the adoption without further notice, arguing that as the child’s lawful parents they could consent and no notice to the sperm donor was required under G. L. c. 210, § 4 (read with § 2).
- A Probate judge denied the motion and reported the question whether lawful parents must give notice to a known sperm donor under G. L. c. 210, § 2; the Supreme Judicial Court took the case on its own motion.
- The SJC concluded the adoption statute’s notice requirements apply only to persons whose written consent is statutorily required under G. L. c. 210, § 2, and that a sperm donor is not among those required to consent.
- The SJC reversed the denial of the motion to proceed without further notice and remanded for proceedings consistent with that holding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether G. L. c. 210 § 2/§ 4 requires notice to a known sperm donor of an adoption petition | Petitioners: No notice required because § 4 requires notice only to persons whose written consent is required under § 2, and § 2 does not list sperm donors | Opposing view (Probate judge): Known sperm donor may have parental interests and thus should receive notice | Held: No. § 4 requires notice only to categories in § 2; sperm donor is not among them, so no statutory notice required |
| Whether a known sperm donor is a “lawful parent” under G. L. c. 210 § 2 for notice/consent purposes | Petitioners: Sperm donor is not a lawful parent; lawful parents are those defined by G. L. c. 46 § 4B (the mother and consenting spouse) | Opposing view: Known sperm donor could arguably seek to establish paternity later and thus should be treated as having parental interest | Held: Sperm donor is not a lawful parent under § 2. G. L. c. 46 § 4B confers parentage on the mother and consenting spouse; any putative father claims are separate and do not expand § 2 notice requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Adoption of Tammy v. Commissioner of Social Servs., 416 Mass. 205 (1993) (similar facts; noted sperm donor gave consent although statute did not require it)
- Adoption of Daisy v. Commissioner of Social Servs., 460 Mass. 72 (2011) (statutory language controls; do not add requirements the Legislature omitted)
- Hunter v. Rose, 463 Mass. 488 (2012) (G. L. c. 46, § 4B treats child born via assisted reproduction with spousal consent as child of both spouses)
- R.R. v. M.H., 426 Mass. 501 (1998) (dicta that a sperm donor inferentially has no parental rights under adoption law)
- D.H. v. R.R., 461 Mass. 756 (2012) (presumption of legitimacy for marital children and limits on putative fathers seeking to establish parentage)
- C.C. v. A.B., 406 Mass. 679 (1990) (putative father must show substantial parent-child relationship to proceed when mother was married)
- Smith v. McDonald, 458 Mass. 540 (2010) (procedures for adjudicating paternity when mother was married)
- Commissioner of Correction v. Superior Court Dep't of the Trial Court for the County of Worcester, 446 Mass. 123 (2006) (court will not read into statute provisions the Legislature did not include)