Okoli v. Okoli
81 Mass. App. Ct. 371
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Judgment of divorce in 2009 required husband to pay child support for twins conceived via IVF with donor gametes; court held husband’s consent to artificial insemination/IVF made him the legal father under G. L. ch. 46, §4B.
- Parties married in 1991 in Boston, separated in 2000; they were on IVF waitlist and sought donor eggs with donor sperm.
- A 2001 written agreement provided that husband consented to wife’s fertility treatment, would recognize offspring, had no financial obligations for the procedure, and wife would not seek further financial support.
- The judge found husband’s consent was given in exchange for wife’s support of his citizenship application, and that he signed consent forms for successive IVF procedures.
- On November 13, 2002, husband signed the final consent form resulting in a viable pregnancy and birth of the twins.
- On appeal, husband challenges (1) sufficiency of consent under §4B, (2) defenses to consent (duress and fraud), and (3) calculation of child support; the court affirms the judgment.
- The opinion discusses substantial Massachusetts and other jurisdictions’ authority on consent to create a child and parental status under artificial insemination/IVF.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is consent under G. L. c. 46, § 4B satisfied by consenting to create a child through IVF/AI? | Okoli argues consent was conditional and not enough to create parental status. | Okoli contends consent was limited by the 2001 agreement and his intent not to be a parent. | Yes; consent to create a child suffices; §4B parental status attaches. |
| Are defenses to consent (duress, fraud) available and were they properly addressed? | Okoli asserts duress and fraud tainted consent; forged signature raised later. | Wife allegedly used citizenship sponsorship as leverage; fraud claims lack credible support. | Duress not properly briefed; fraud unproven; defenses do not negate consent. |
| Is the child support amount properly calculated based on wife’s income from rental property? | Okoli contests income calculation leading to too high support. | Judge properly used wife’s tax returns and deductions; no error. | No error; calculation supported by record. |
Key Cases Cited
- T.F. v. B.L., 442 Mass. 522 (Mass. 2004) (consent to parental status under astronomy of §4B tied to creating a child; invalidates some parenthood agreements)
- A.Z. v. B.Z., 431 Mass. 150 (Mass. 2000) (parenthood agreements generally not enforceable; decision to become a parent is a personal right)
- Laura WW. v. Peter WW., 51 A.D.3d 211 (N.Y. 2008) (consent to create a child equates to parental responsibility; supports IVF consent)
- Alexandria S. v. Pacific Fertility Med. Center, 55 Cal. App. 4th 110 (Cal. App. 1997) (forged or misunderstood consent can negate implied consent in some contexts)
- Marriage of Witbeck-Wildhagen, 281 Ill. App. 3d 502 (Ill. App. 1996) (express refusal to consent may negate parental status when procedure proceeds without knowledge)
- Knox v. Remick, 371 Mass. 433 (Mass. 1976) (parents may not bargain away children's rights to support)
- White v. Laingor, 434 Mass. 64 (Mass. 2001) (parental support and related rights reviewed in divorce)