79 So. 3d 787
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Two women in a long-term lesbian relationship (1995–2006) conceived a child via ova donated by the biological mother (Appellant) for the other partner (Appellee) through IVF; child born in Florida (Jan 4, 2004) with both women intending to raise the child as equal parents; birth certificate lists Appellee as the mother, though genetic testing showed Appellant as the biological mother; couple lived as joint tenants with a shared bank account and joint financial support for the child; they participated jointly in the child’s baptism and early education; relationship deteriorated, separation occurred in 2006, child primarily lived with Appellee, and Appellee relocated with the child; Appellant later located them in Australia and served with a lawsuit seeking parental rights; trial court granted summary judgment for Appellee relying on Florida Statutes §742.14 and related provisions; the appellate court applied de novo review and reversed the trial court’s ruling on the constitutional and statutory issues; case framed as a question of first impression in Florida.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §742.14 can deny parental rights to a genetic mother in a lesbian partnership. | Appellant argues the statute does not apply to her rights as a genetic mother. | Appellee contends §742.14 relieves the donor of parental rights. | Statute applied as unconstitutional in this context; rights cannot be denied under §742.14. |
| Whether the informed-consent form waived Appellant’s parental rights. | Appellant signed a donor consent form that purportedly waived rights. | Waiver language was broad and should bar Appellant’s rights. | Waiver not binding under the facts; did not extinguish Appellant’s parental rights. |
| Whether §63.042(3) (gay-adoption prohibition) supports depriving Appellant of rights. | Statutory framework supports a restriction based on nontraditional families. | Statutory provisions sustain the trial court’s ruling denying parental rights. | Statute not supportable to deprive Appellant of parental rights; equal protection concerns. |
| Are Appellant’s constitutional rights violated by depriving her parental rights under §742.14? | Appellant has constitutional rights to equal protection and privacy as a genetic mother. | Statutory framework should control; no basis to invalidate the statute. | Court holds §742.14 unconstitutional as applied; constitutional rights implicated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal.4th 84 (Cal. 1993) (rejection of strict donor-based transfer arguments in surrogacy context)
- K.M. v. E.G., 37 Cal.4th 130 (Cal. 2005) (egg donor in lesbian pairing can be a parent under UPA framework)
- In re Adoption of Baby E.A.W., 658 So.2d 961 (Fla. 1995) (recognizes natural/biological parent rights in certain unwed parent contexts)
- Beagle v. Beagle, 678 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 1996) (constitutional privacy and parental rights considerations in Florida)