Frazier v. Goudschaal
2013 WL 646309, 295 P.3d 542, 296 Kan. 730 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A co-parenting agreement between a biological parent and a non-biological partner to raise a child conceived via artificial insemination is not void as against public policy and is enforceable, so long as the agreement promotes the welfare and best interests of the child. A biological parent exercises their fundamental parental rights by entering into such an agreement and cannot later invoke those same rights to unilaterally invalidate it to the child's detriment.
Facts:
- Kelly Goudschaal and Marci Frazier were in a long-term, same-sex relationship that began in 1995.
- They jointly decided to have children via artificial insemination, with Goudschaal agreeing to be the birth mother after Frazier was unable to conceive.
- Goudschaal gave birth to two daughters, one in 2002 and another in 2004.
- Prior to the birth of each child, the couple executed a written co-parenting agreement stating their intent to jointly share parental responsibility and addressing custody and visitation in the event of a separation.
- The agreement identified Frazier as a 'de facto parent,' and the couple also executed wills naming each other as the children's guardian.
- The family lived as a single unit; the children used the hyphenated surname 'Goudschaal-Frazier' and referred to both women as 'Mother' or 'Mom.'
- After the couple separated in 2008, Goudschaal began to curtail Frazier's contact with the children.
- In October 2008, Goudschaal announced her intent to move with the children to Texas, which would effectively sever Frazier's relationship with them.
Procedural Posture:
- Marci Frazier filed a petition in the Johnson County District Court (a state trial court) to enforce a co-parenting agreement and for equitable partition of property.
- Kelly Goudschaal filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide child custody or parenting time for a non-parent.
- The district court denied Goudschaal's motion, finding it had both equitable jurisdiction and statutory jurisdiction under the Kansas Parentage Act.
- After a hearing, the district court awarded the parties joint legal custody, designated Goudschaal as the residential custodian, granted Frazier reasonable parenting time, and ordered Frazier to pay child support.
- Goudschaal, as appellant, appealed the district court's final order. The appeal was transferred directly to the Kansas Supreme Court (the state's highest court) on its own motion, with Frazier as the appellee.
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 a biological mother's constitutional right to the care, custody, and control of her children render an otherwise valid co-parenting agreement with a non-biological, same-sex partner unenforceable as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, J.
No. A biological mother’s constitutional parental rights do not render a co-parenting agreement with a non-biological partner unenforceable as a matter of law. A parent exercises her fundamental right to direct the care and upbringing of her children when she voluntarily enters into a co-parenting agreement to provide the child with two parents. The court reasoned that such agreements do not violate public policy if they are intended to promote the child's welfare. The children, as third-party beneficiaries, have a reliance interest in the stable, two-parent family created by the agreement, and the state has a parens patriae interest in protecting their best interests. Distinguishing this case from situations where a third party intrudes on an existing family, the court noted here the two-parent family structure was created by mutual agreement from the children's inception and cannot be unilaterally dismantled by one party to the children's harm.
Concurring - Biles, J.
I concur in the result but would resolve the case on narrower statutory grounds without reaching broader common law or public policy questions. The Kansas Parentage Act (KPA) provides a sufficient framework, as it allows any 'interested party' to bring an action to determine a mother-child relationship. The written co-parenting agreement created a statutory presumption of maternity for Frazier under K.S.A. 38-1114(a)(4) because she recognized her maternity in writing. The district court properly exercised its discretion under the KPA to find that the children's best interests were served by upholding this presumption and recognizing Frazier's parental status.
Analysis:
This decision provides a crucial legal framework for recognizing the parental rights of a non-biological parent in a same-sex relationship, particularly in the context of assisted reproduction and express co-parenting agreements. It establishes that such agreements are not per se void and can be enforced, shifting the legal analysis from a biological parent's absolute rights to the best interests of the child and the enforceability of the parents' original intent. This creates a contract-based pathway for non-biological parents to secure custody and visitation, grounding their rights in the equitable protection of children who were intentionally brought into a two-parent family. The ruling signals a move away from a strictly biological definition of parenthood toward a more functional one where a family is created by design.
