C.G. v. J.H.
193 A.3d 891
Pa.2018Background
- C.G. and J.H. were same-sex partners; J.H. gave birth to Child via intrauterine insemination with an anonymous donor in 2006; C.G. is non‑biological and did not adopt.
- The couple lived together ~5 years; they separated in 2012; J.H. and Child moved to Pennsylvania; C.G. thereafter had minimal contact.
- In 2015 C.G. sued for shared legal and partial physical custody claiming she acted as a mother and intended to co‑parent from conception onward.
- J.H. filed preliminary objections arguing C.G. lacked statutory standing under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5324 as neither a parent, in loco parentis, nor a qualifying grandparent.
- The trial court found C.G. was neither a parent under §5324(1) nor in loco parentis under §5324(2), relying on credibility findings and weighing pre‑ and post‑separation conduct; the Superior Court affirmed.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed: C.G. is not a "parent" for §5324(1) and the trial court properly evaluated in loco parentis (assumption of parental status + discharge of parental duties), including relevant post‑separation evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (C.G.) | Defendant's Argument (J.H.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether non‑biological, non‑adoptive former same‑sex partner is a "parent" under 23 Pa.C.S. §5324(1) when child was born via ART | Parentage should include intent to procreate and co‑parent via ART; parenthood should be recognized beyond biology/adoption | "Parent" remains limited to biological/adoptive (or contractual) pathways; no mutual intent or contract here | Court: "parent" not expanded; prior PA law allows parentage by biology, adoption, some ART contracts, but C.G. had no contract/intent evidence credited by trial court — no parent standing |
| Whether a former partner stood in loco parentis to obtain standing under §5324(2) | C.G. assumed parentlike role, lived as family, formed bond; post‑separation conduct is irrelevant to standing once status is established | Requirement is assumption of parental status plus discharge of parental duties; post‑separation conduct is probative and here shows C.G. did not discharge parental duties | Court: in loco parentis requires assumption + discharge of duties; trial court reasonably found those elements lacking on the facts; post‑separation conduct may be considered to illuminate whether duties were ever assumed |
| Whether post‑separation conduct may be used to deny in loco parentis status | Post‑separation conduct should not defeat previously‑acquired in loco parentis status; focus should be on the time when parentlike relationship was formed | Post‑separation conduct is relevant and can corroborate (or undermine) claims that a party ever acted as parent | Court: post‑separation conduct is not dispositive but is admissible and may shed light on whether parental status/duties ever existed; trial court did not err in considering it |
| Whether courts should adopt broad intent‑based parentage for ART cases (judicially) | Broaden §5324(1) to recognize intent‑based parenthood for ART (to avoid disparate results for same‑sex couples) | Such expansion should be legislative; existing PA precedents limit parentage absent biology, adoption, or enforceable ART contract | Court: declines to adopt new broad test; recognizes concurrences advocating intent approach but holds record lacks mutual intent/contract so relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in care, custody, control of their children)
- Ferguson v. McKiernan, 596 Pa. 78 (2007) (enforceability of agreement re sperm donation; recognized contractual mechanisms can affect parental obligations)
- In re Baby S., 128 A.3d 296 (Pa. Super. 2015) (surrogacy/ART contracts can be enforceable and can establish intended parents' legal status)
- J.F. v. D.B., 897 A.2d 1261 (Pa. Super. 2006) (third parties are generally treated as non‑parents; surrogacy contract issues addressed)
- T.B. v. L.R.M., 786 A.2d 913 (Pa. 2001) (in loco parentis requires assumption of parental status and discharge of parental duties)
- J.A.L. v. E.P.H., 682 A.2d 1314 (Pa. Super. 1996) (in loco parentis may be found where partners intended and lived as a family; post‑separation contact can reinforce standing)