Della Corte v. Ramirez, 961 N.E.2d 601

Ramirez and Della Corte were married when the child was born.
The child was conceived via artificial insemination using sperm from an anonymous donor.
Ramirez participated in the insemination process and the couple agreed to conceive.
G. L. c. 46, § 4B states a child born to a married woman via donor insemination is legitimate of the mother and husband.
The parties are both listed as parents on the birth certificate and Ramirez is mentioned in the separation agreement and divorce complaint.
Ramirez pays child support and the court denied the need for additional second-parent adoption given the marriage and birth circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Ramirez the child’s legal parent despite nonbiological status?	Della Corte argues Ramirez is not legal parent.	Ramirez is protected by the §4B framework and same-sex prohibition-neutral reading.	Ramirez is the legal parent.
Should the custody modification be granted for a material change in circumstances?	There has been a change warranting modification.	No material change; circumstances remain similar.	No substantial change justifies modification.
Was a best interests analysis required?	Court should conduct best interests review.	No change, so best interests analysis unnecessary.	Best interests analysis not required.

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (Mass. 2003) (gender-neutral construction of marriage-related provisions; elimination of second-parent adoption need in marriage)
Cerutti-O’Brien v. Cerutti-O’Brien, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 166 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010) (applies husband/wife terminology to same-sex couples in divorce context)
T.F. v. B.L., 442 Mass. 522 (Mass. 2004) (no marriage-conception timing requirement in §4B)
Hernandez v. Branciforte, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 212 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002) (custodial change requires material change in circumstances)
Rosenthal v. Maney, 51 Mass. App. Ct. 257 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001) (modification requires material/substantial change)