736 S.E.2d 711
Va.2013Background
- Unmarried couple Beverley Mason and William Breit used assisted conception to have a child; Breit provided sperm and signed an Acknowledgement of Paternity with Mason; L.F. was born July 13, 2009 with Breit listed as father and a joint custody/visitation agreement later signed.
- Breit remained involved after birth, including visitation, financial support, and health insurance coverage; Mason terminated contact in Aug. 2010.
- Breit filed a petition for custody/visitation; Mason moved to dismiss; circuit court dismissed Breit’s petition; Breit appealed.
- Court of Appeals held that an unmarried known donor can establish paternity under Code § 20-49.1(B)(2) when accompanied by an Acknowledgement of Paternity based on assisted conception.
- Virginia Supreme Court granted review and held that the assisted conception statute must be read harmoniously with Code § 20-49.1(B)(2); donor could establish paternity; the appeals court decision was affirmed.
- The decision addresses constitutional due process and equal protection considerations and the enforceability of paternity acknowledgments under Code § 32.1-257(D).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unmarried sperm donor may establish paternity under the assisted conception statute. | Breit argues 20-158(A)(3) bars him despite 20-49.1(B)(2). | Mason argues 20-158(A)(3) and 20-164 foreclose donor paternity; 20-49.1(B)(2) is null. | Yes; harmonized reading allows paternity under 20-49.1(B)(2). |
| Whether Code § 20-49.1(B)(2) creates a valid basis to establish paternity despite 20-158(A)(3). | Breit contends Acknowledgement of Paternity creates binding parentage. | Mason contends 20-49.1(B)(2) cannot overcome 20-158(A)(3). | Yes; 20-49.1(B)(2) can apply in this context. |
| Whether harmonizing statutes violates equal protection or due process. | Breit asserts unmarried donor rights are constitutionally protected. | Mason asserts marital status-based distinction is rational but may infringe liberty interests. | Harmonization survives due process; equal protection rational basis supports policy. |
| Whether Code § 32.1-257(D) birth-record provision bars donor from parental rights. | Recording donor as father may be contrary to due process. | Birth records must reflect intended parentage; donor rights not allowed. | Not bar; birth certificate rules harmonized; due process requires recognition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental rights are fundamental liberty interests)
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983) (unwed father's protected relationship requires more than biology)
- Copeland v. Todd, 282 Va. 183 (Va. 2011) (parent-child liberty interests; preserve family)
- Welborn v. Doe, 10 Va. App. 631 (Va. App. 1990) (donor rights vs. intended parents in assisted conception)
- Hess v. Snyder Hunt Corp., 240 Va. 49 (Va. 1990) (preserve constitutionality of legislative actions)
- City of Lynchburg v. English Constr. Co., 277 Va. 574 (Va. 2009) (read statutes harmoniously to avoid conflicts)