971 N.W.2d 672
Mich. Ct. App.2021Background
- Kyresha LeFever (plaintiff-appellee) and Lanesha Matthews (defendant-appellant) agreed to create and parent children together using assisted reproductive technology; LeFever provided ova and donor sperm fertilized them; Matthews gestated and gave birth to twins.
- The trial court ruled that LeFever, as the genetic contributor, was the twins’ only “natural parent,” and that Matthews was a nonparent third party with no parental rights.
- There was no surrogacy contract and neither party agreed to relinquish parental rights; the Surrogate Parenting Act (SPA) was not applicable.
- The Court of Appeals majority held both women are legal mothers with parental standing under the Child Custody Act (CCA); Judge Gleicher wrote a concurring opinion agreeing with the result and providing additional common-law and constitutional analysis.
- Gleicher emphasized common-law maternity (gestation/birth = natural mother), rejected a genetics-only rule for parenthood, and urged consideration of equal protection and due process principles given the parties’ inability to marry at conception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (LeFever) | Defendant's Argument (Matthews) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the birth mother (Matthews) is a “natural parent” under the CCA despite lacking genetic link | LeFever argued genetic parenthood controls; Matthews lacks genetic tie so is not a natural parent | Matthews argued that gestation and birth make her the natural mother under common law and CCA | Court: Birth mother is a natural parent; common law and the CCA encompass a woman who gestates/gestates as a "natural parent" |
| Whether the egg donor (LeFever) is a “natural parent” under the CCA despite not gestating | LeFever claimed her genetic contribution and intent to parent confer natural-parent status | Matthews argued genetic contribution alone should not displace the gestational mother | Court: CCA’s term "natural parent" is sufficiently elastic to include LeFever; both women have parental standing |
| Whether the SPA or other statutes require a genetic relationship to establish parenthood | LeFever relied on genetics and some statutory language to support her standing | Matthews and concurrence argued SPA is inapplicable (no surrogacy contract) and statutes do not mandate genetics as sole criterion | Court: SPA did not apply; statutes do not impose a genetics-only rule for parenthood; genetics are not dispositive |
| Whether denying parental rights based on genetics or marital status violates due process/equal protection | LeFever asserted parental rights under statutory scheme and biological connection | Matthews (and amici) argued exclusion of a birth mother or differential treatment of same-sex unmarried couples raises constitutional problems | Concurrence: Court avoided broad constitutional ruling, but Judge Gleicher concluded equal protection and due process strongly support recognizing both women as parents and warned against sex- or marriage-based distinctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (same-sex marriage constitutional ruling informing family-status context)
- Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989) (historical recognition that dual fatherhood was treated as legally impossible)
- D.M.T. v. T.M.H., 129 So. 3d 320 (Fla. 2013) (Florida Supreme Court: assisted-reproduction statute unconstitutional as applied to deny parental rights to intended/biological mother)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental liberty interest in care, custody, and control of children)
- Van v. Zahorik, 460 Mich. 320 (1999) (CCA is comprehensive statutory scheme; limits on judicial creation of parental rights for unwed nonbiological parents)
- Porter v. Hill, 495 Mich. 987 (2014) (state court equated "biological parent" with "natural parent" in limited circumstances)
- Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal. 4th 84 (1993) (discussion of single "natural mother" concept in assisted reproduction context)
- Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982) (heightened scrutiny for sex-based classifications)
- Atkinson v. Atkinson, 160 Mich. App. 601 (1987) (equitable-parent doctrine for married nonbiological parents)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (unmarried parents’ custodial interests are constitutionally cognizable)
- Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality & Reform, 431 U.S. 816 (1977) (family relationships not exclusively determined by biology)
- Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978) (recognition of parental relationship as constitutionally protected)