Ferguson v. McKiernan
596 Pa. 78, 2007 Pa. LEXIS 2895, 940 A.2d 1236 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pre-conception agreement between a known sperm donor and a mother, in which the donor relinquishes parental rights in exchange for a release from support obligations, is enforceable when the parties use clinical, non-sexual means for conception with the clear intent to replicate an anonymous donation. Such an agreement does not violate the public policy that typically prohibits parents from bargaining away a child's right to support.
Facts:
- Joel McKiernan and Ivonne Ferguson, former romantic partners, were no longer in a sexual relationship when the events leading to the dispute occurred.
- Ferguson, who was unable to conceive naturally due to a prior tubal ligation, asked McKiernan to provide sperm for in vitro fertilization (IVF).
- McKiernan and Ferguson entered into an oral agreement that he would provide his sperm on the condition that he would have no parental rights or support obligations, and that his role would be kept confidential, similar to an anonymous donor.
- McKiernan agreed, and on February 14, 1994, he provided a sperm sample at Hershey Medical Center, which was used to fertilize Ferguson's eggs.
- Twins were born in August 1994, and Ferguson listed her estranged husband as the father on the birth certificates.
- For approximately five years following the twins' birth, both parties adhered to the agreement; McKiernan did not act as a father and Ferguson did not seek support from him.
- After five years, Ferguson contacted McKiernan and subsequently filed a motion seeking child support.
Procedural Posture:
- Ivonne Ferguson filed a motion seeking child support from Joel McKiernan in the Dauphin County Domestic Relations court, a trial court.
- The trial court found that a binding oral agreement existed but held it was unenforceable as against public policy and entered a support order against McKiernan.
- McKiernan, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's order, agreeing that the contract was unenforceable because it bargained away the children's right to support.
- McKiernan, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the state's highest 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:
Is a pre-conception oral agreement, in which a known sperm donor relinquishes parental rights in exchange for the mother's promise not to seek child support, enforceable when conception occurs through clinical, non-sexual means?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Baer
Yes, the pre-conception agreement is enforceable. An agreement between a sperm donor and a recipient to forgo support and parental rights is valid when it is formed prior to conception and the parties utilize clinical reproductive technology with the express intent to mirror the legal arrangement of an anonymous, institutional sperm donation. The long-standing public policy against parents bargaining away a child's right to support applies to children conceived through sexual intercourse, not to situations where a contract is the 'but for' cause of a child's conception via assisted reproduction. To hold otherwise would create legal uncertainty for all sperm donors, limit the reproductive choices of would-be mothers, and fail to recognize the distinction between sexual reproduction and clinical conception. The agreement does not violate a 'dominant public policy' sufficient to render it unenforceable.
Dissenting - Justice Saylor
No, the agreement is not enforceable. Pennsylvania statute, 23 Pa.C.S. § 5102, establishes a clear public policy that all children born out of wedlock are entitled to the same rights and privileges as children born in wedlock, which includes the right to support from both biological parents. The statute applies 'in every case' and does not carve out an exception for children conceived through assisted reproduction. The legislature has considered but failed to enact laws addressing the legal status of sperm donors, and it is the role of the legislature, not the judiciary, to create such a significant change in public policy.
Dissenting - Justice Eakin
No, the agreement is not enforceable. The method of conception is irrelevant; McKiernan is the children's father, and parents cannot bargain away their children's fundamental right to support. The paramount concern in any child support proceeding is the best interest of the children, and longstanding jurisprudence holds that such contracts are unenforceable as against public policy. This case is not about anonymous sperm clinics but about a private contract between two identifiable parents, and the children's right to support from their father should not be negated because of the 'intervention of hardware' in their conception.
Analysis:
This decision creates a significant, contract-based exception to the well-established rule that a child's right to support cannot be bargained away by their parents. By distinguishing between conception via sexual intercourse and clinical assisted reproduction, the court provides legal protection for known-donor arrangements that mimic institutional donations. This ruling offers clarity and predictability for individuals using non-traditional methods to form families, but it also establishes a new legal dichotomy based on the means of conception, potentially influencing future cases involving surrogacy, egg donation, and other reproductive technologies in Pennsylvania.
