D.M.T. v. T.M.H.
129 So. 3d 320 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute that automatically terminates the parental rights of a biological parent who provides genetic material to their same-sex partner for the purpose of conceiving and jointly raising a child is unconstitutional as applied. A biological parent's inchoate interest in their child develops into a fundamental, constitutionally protected right when they demonstrate a commitment to parenthood by assuming parental responsibilities.
Facts:
- D.M.T. and T.M.H. were in a committed relationship from 1995 to 2006 and decided to have a child to raise together as equal partners.
- After discovering D.M.T. was infertile, they used assisted reproductive technology, paid for from a joint bank account.
- T.M.H. provided her egg, which was fertilized by an anonymous sperm donor and implanted in D.M.T., who carried the child to term.
- They informed the reproductive doctor of their intent to raise the child together and underwent counseling to prepare for parenthood.
- After the child was born in 2004, she was given a hyphenated last name combining both women's surnames, and they sent out birth announcements with both of their names.
- For several years after the birth, both women actively co-parented the child, participating in her baptism and early education.
- The couple separated in 2006, and after an initial period of shared parenting and support, D.M.T. severed T.M.H.'s contact with the child and moved to Australia.
Procedural Posture:
- T.M.H. filed a petition in a Florida trial court to establish her parental rights and for declaratory relief, challenging the constitutionality of section 742.14, Florida Statutes.
- D.M.T. filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that T.M.H. had no parental rights as a matter of law.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of D.M.T., finding it was bound by the statute.
- T.M.H., as appellant, appealed to the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to T.M.H., the appellee. It also certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Florida's assisted reproductive technology statute, section 742.14, violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. and Florida Constitutions when applied to extinguish the parental rights of a biological mother who provided her egg to her same-sex partner with the mutual intent to raise the resulting child as equal parents?
Opinions:
Majority - Pariente, J.
Yes, the statute is unconstitutional as applied. A biological parent's inchoate interest in a child develops into a fundamental right protected by the Due Process and Privacy Clauses once they demonstrate a full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood. The court reasoned that T.M.H.'s situation is analogous to that of an unwed biological father, whose parental rights are constitutionally protected when he grasps the opportunity to develop a relationship with his child and assumes parental responsibilities. Here, T.M.H. demonstrated such a commitment by planning for the child, providing her genetic material with the intent to parent, and actively co-parenting for several years. Terminating this fundamental right through the automatic application of a statute does not serve a compelling state interest. Furthermore, the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause because its definition of a 'commissioning couple' as an 'intended mother and father' irrationally denies same-sex couples the same protection from the relinquishment of parental rights that it affords to unmarried heterosexual couples.
Dissenting - Polston, C.J.
No, the statute is constitutional and T.M.H. does not have parental rights. The dissent argued that T.M.H. explicitly waived her parental rights by signing informed consent forms at the fertility clinic, which should be enforced as a binding contract. Separately, the plain language of section 742.14 extinguishes the rights of any egg donor who is not part of a 'commissioning couple,' defined as a mother and father, making T.M.H. a legal stranger to the child. The majority's due process analysis is flawed because it creates a new fundamental right that is not rooted in history or tradition, which has always recognized the birth mother as the sole legal mother. Finally, the statute does not violate equal protection because it is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of promoting stability and certainty for families created through assisted reproduction by clearly defining parental rights and preventing claims from donors.
Analysis:
This decision significantly extends constitutional protections for parental rights into the context of same-sex couples and assisted reproductive technology. By analogizing the biological mother to an unwed father, the court established that a genetic link combined with a demonstrated commitment to parenting creates a fundamental right that a statute cannot automatically extinguish based on sexual orientation. This ruling challenges traditional, heteronormative statutory definitions of 'parent' and 'family,' setting a precedent that parental rights should be determined by function and intent, not just by rigid, outdated legal categories. The case signals to legislatures that statutes governing reproductive technology must account for the rights of all individuals who intend to form families, regardless of their marital status or sexual orientation.
Unlock the full brief for D.M.T. v. T.M.H.