Establishing Intent-Based Parentage in ART Cases: Glover v. Junior

Introduction

In Glover v. Junior, 2025 WL ____ (Pa.), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania confronted a novel family-law question: when a married same-sex couple uses assisted reproductive technology (ART) to conceive, separates before birth, and fails to formalize parentage by contract or adoption, how should parenthood be determined? The appellants were Chanel Glover (the genetic and gestational mother) and Nicole Junior (the non-biological spouse). After conceiving via in vitro fertilization (IVF) with a known sperm donor and before a confirmatory adoption could take place, Glover sued for divorce and Junior sought a pre-birth determination of her legal parentage. The key issue became whether existing parentage doctrines (biology, adoption, marital presumption/estoppel, ART contract) could accommodate this fact pattern—or whether a new “intent-based parentage” doctrine was required.

Summary of the Judgment

By a 6–1 vote, the Court held none of the four established pathways to parentage applied neatly to Junior. The marriage had broken down before birth (defeating the marital presumption), no adoption was finalized, no sperm-donor or surrogacy contract explicitly conferred parentage, and biology plainly favored only Glover. Recognizing a gap in the law and echoing concurring views in C.G. v. J.H., the Court adopted a fifth path—an intent-based parentage doctrine—for families who jointly undertake ART. Applying that doctrine to the ample record evidence of mutual intent and joint participation, the Court affirmed that Junior is the child’s legal parent.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Ferguson v. McKiernan, 940 A.2d 1236 (Pa. 2007): Upheld an oral sperm-donation contract, enforcing parties’ intentions to replicate anonymous donation and denying support liability to the donor.
In re Baby S., 128 A.3d 296 (Pa. Super. 2015): Enforced a written gestational-carrier contract imposing parental rights and obligations on the intended non-biological mother.
C.G. v. J.H., 193 A.3d 891 (Pa. 2018): Denied standing to a non-biological partner under Pennsylvania’s custody-standing statute where no contract or mutual intent to co-parent existed. However, the majority left the door ajar for future “intent-based” theories, and concurring opinions explicitly advocated their adoption.
K.E.M. v. P.C.S., 38 A.3d 798 (Pa. 2012): Limited paternity by estoppel to cases where estoppel advances the child’s best interests.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court first confirmed the four existing parentage doctrines—biology, adoption, equity (marital presumption or estoppel), and ART contract—did not furnish relief:

Biology: Junior lacks any genetic or gestational link.
Adoption: The couple separated before completing a confirmatory adoption.
Marital Presumption: Inapplicable because the marriage had already broken down by the time parentage was litigated.
ART Contract: No third-party agreement (e.g., with the sperm bank or fertility clinic) explicitly conferred legal parent status on Junior, and the Court found no enforceable oral contract between spouses under common-law contract elements (offer, acceptance, consideration).
Equitable Estoppel: Recognized as a child-protective doctrine, but difficult to apply pre-birth and in the absence of a full custody relationship.

Confronted with a statutory and common-law gap, the Court embraced intent-based parentage, a doctrine grounded in the parties’ mutual intention to conceive and raise a child, and their joint participation in ART. This approach:

Echoes ART contract cases (Ferguson, Baby S.) in prioritizing parties’ intentions over strict biological ties.
Advances Pennsylvania’s paramount policy to protect children’s stability, continuity, and sources of emotional and financial support.
Recognizes the fundamental liberty interest of parents in directing their family lives, especially when couples consciously choose ART to fulfill that role together.

On the facts, the record demonstrated unequivocally that Glover and Junior:

Contracted with Fairfax Cryobank and RMA South California, listing Junior as “Co-Intended Parent”;
Made joint medical decisions, shared financial burdens, and participated in hormone injections and medical appointments;
Signed mirror-image affidavits expressing their intent that Junior become a legal parent with equal rights and obligations;
Prepared for the arrival of the child together (doula agreements, baby-name selection, birth announcements).

As a result, the Court held Junior established her legal parentage under the newly adopted intent-based doctrine.

3. Impact

The recognition of intent-based parentage marks a milestone in Pennsylvania family law. Its effects include:

Filling a gap for couples who jointly pursue ART but separate before adoption can formalize their intentions;
Ensuring children born by ART are not disadvantaged relative to those born by intercourse when a marriage dissolves pre-birth;
Encouraging clarity and early documentation of parties’ parenting intentions, though without forcing formal contracts between spouses;
Promoting equitable outcomes and respecting diverse family formations, especially LGBTQ+ and single-parent families choosing ART.

Practitioners should advise clients to memorialize their intent in writing—through affidavits or co-parenting agreements—to provide clear evidence should disputes arise.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Assistive Reproductive Technology (ART) – medical techniques (like IVF or donor insemination) to create pregnancy without sexual intercourse.
Intent-Based Parentage – a legal principle recognizing that when two people jointly intend and act to bring a child into the world, they both become legal parents.
Marital Presumption – a rule that a child born during an intact marriage is presumed to be the child of both spouses; not applicable if the marriage is over.
Equitable Estoppel – stops a person from denying parentage when their words or conduct led the other to believe and rely on a parental relationship, to the child’s detriment.
Confirmatory Adoption – a secondary adoption by a non-biological parent to confirm parentage, often used by same-sex couples.

Conclusion

Glover v. Junior establishes a fifth, intent-based pathway to legal parentage in Pennsylvania’s common law—tailored for couples who jointly undertake ART but cannot rely on biology, adoption, marital presumption, or conventional ART contracts. By focusing on mutual intent and shared actions, the Court ensures that children born through assisted reproduction enjoy the stability, emotional bonds, and financial support of two parents. This development aligns Pennsylvania with a broader national trend and affirms the Commonwealth’s commitment to adapting familial doctrines to contemporary realities.