The Pa. Supreme Court expands the legal definition of parenthood
The decision in Glover v. Junior was seen as a win for LGBTQ families and those using assisted reproductive technology.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on Thursday that established a new pathway to legal parenthood in the state.
The high court ruled that in situations where aspiring parents use assisted reproductive technology, like IVF, with the intent to conceive and co-parent a child together, they have effectively proven that they are parents. They do not need to sign a formal contract or share genetics with the child to establish legal parenthood.
“We believe the time has come for our law to embrace a fifth pathway to parentage,” the justices wrote in the majority opinion. “It is apparent that in some ways, parents who conceive using [assisted reproductive technology] essentially demonstrate their stability and dedication to a child by going through a more rigorous, time consuming, and expensive process to conceive a child than do many parents who conceive through sexual intercourse.”
Pennsylvania does not have any statutes defining parentage, so it has largely been left to the courts to decide. The decision was heralded by LGBTQ groups and family law groups as a major victory.
“We’re elated,” said Helen Casale, an attorney who coauthored the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers amicus brief in the case. “It protects all families in Pennsylvania that need to use assisted reproductive technology to start their families.”
The decision marked the likely end of a bruising three-year legal battle. The case centered on Chanel Glover and Nicole Junior, a married lesbian couple who decided to conceive using IVF. They determined that Glover would become pregnant, and chose a sperm donor who shared traits with Junior. They went through the long, expensive fertility process together.
But the couple’s marriage deteriorated before their baby was born. In April 2022, Glover filed for divorce. Junior filed a petition asking the court to recognize her as a parent to their unborn child.
» READ MORE: Her pregnant wife filed for divorce. The lawsuit changed who gets to be a parent in Pa.
Soon after, a family court judge ruled in Junior’s favor, deciding that she was a legal parent to the child. Glover appealed to the Superior Court, which eventually agreed to hear the case en banc, a rare kind of session reserved for especially significant and complex cases, where nine judges are present. In December 2023, the Superior Court ruled that Junior was indeed a legal parent for multiple reasons, including “intent-based parentage.”
The ruling set a precedent, and meant that courts would take into account the intentions and actions of parents before, during, and after conception to determine legal parenthood.
Glover appealed again. On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Superior Court’s decision, rejecting the idea that couples using assisted reproduction should have to sign a formal contract.
“The decision made within a loving couple to have a baby is generally not a quid pro quo,” the court wrote in the majority opinion. “We prefer to recognize a more dignified means to establish parentage.”
“It’s pretty incredible,” said Megan Watson, an attorney at BKW Family Law, who represented Junior. “It’s a decision that supports families.”
Watson said she aimed to return to Family Court as soon as possible to figure out a custody arrangement.
At the center of the precedent are Glover and Junior and a little boy who is almost 3 years old. Glover did not respond to requests for comment, though her attorney, Barbara Schneider, said in an interview they were considering their options. Schneider said she feared the new legal framework would require courts to decide intent case by case, muddying the issue instead of clarifying it.
“I just think it’s an issue that should be properly left for the legislature,” Schneider said. (A bill to define parentage in the state, which wouldn’t conflict with or supersede the court decision, died in a Senate committee last year, though lawmakers plan to reintroduce it this year.) More than that, she said, she felt her client’s voice was lost in what became a politically charged case about LGBTQ rights.
Junior was wrestling with her own reaction to her victory. On one hand, she was overwhelmed with joy, thinking about the other people who would not have to go through what she did to prove she was a parent.
But she was also still grieving. The only time she has seen her son was in a grainy sonogram photo from before he was born.
“Despite this big win on behalf of families, if I can just be honest, I am also reminded of the three years — three years — our son has been denied my love, care, and stability,” she said. Her grandmother died in January without ever getting to meet him. Though Junior longs to hold her son, read to him, cook for him, tuck him in at night, she has no illusions that it will be easy to erase the last three bitter years.
Still, her eyes were now on the future.
“For me,” she said, “the next step is seeing my son.”