Hunter v. Rose
975 N.E.2d 857, 463 Mass. 488, 2012 WL 4457566 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the principle of comity, Massachusetts will recognize an out-of-state registered domestic partnership as the equivalent of a marriage for purposes of dissolution and parentage, provided the partnership confers rights and responsibilities identical to those of marriage in the originating state.
Facts:
- Amy Hunter and Miko Rose began a relationship in Massachusetts in 2001 and moved to California in 2002.
- In October 2003, the couple registered a domestic partnership in California, knowing that a new law would soon grant them rights and responsibilities identical to marriage, and they did not dissolve the partnership after that law took effect.
- In 2006, the couple agreed that Rose would conceive a child; she gave birth to a daughter, Jill, in August 2007, and both women contributed to her care.
- The couple then planned for a second child, and Hunter conceived in April 2008 using the same sperm donor Rose had used.
- The couple's relationship ended in August 2008, while Hunter was pregnant.
- In October 2008, Rose moved with Jill to Oregon, deceiving Hunter about her intent to return and subsequently ceasing all communication, actively attempting to remove Hunter from Jill's life.
- Hunter gave birth to a daughter, Mia, in January 2009. Rose expressed no desire for a parental relationship with Mia and actively discouraged a relationship between the two half-sisters.
Procedural Posture:
- In November 2008, Hunter filed a complaint for custody of Jill in the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court (trial court).
- Hunter subsequently filed an amended complaint and a separate complaint for divorce; the divorce complaint was dismissed and the remaining cases were consolidated.
- A bench trial was held in the Probate and Family Court.
- The trial judge issued a judgment dissolving the RDP, declaring both parties to be the legal parents of both children, and awarding primary physical custody of Jill to Hunter.
- In a separate order, the trial judge awarded Hunter $180,000 in attorney's fees.
- Rose, as the appellant, appealed the judgment, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court granted her application for direct appellate review.
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 Massachusetts, under principles of comity, recognize a California-registered same-sex domestic partnership as the equivalent of a marriage for the purposes of determining parentage and custody upon dissolution?
Opinions:
Majority - Ireland, C.J.
Yes. A California-registered domestic partnership (RDP) is the equivalent of a marriage in the Commonwealth because California law provides parties to an RDP with rights and responsibilities identical to those of spouses. Citing its recent decision in Elia-Warnken v. Elia, the court reasoned that failing to recognize the RDP would allow a party to evade legal obligations, such as child support, and would harm the children's welfare by denying them the financial and emotional support of two legal parents. Under both Massachusetts and California law, a child born into a legal spousal relationship is presumed to be the child of both spouses. The court found that Rose consented to Mia's conception and Hunter consented to Jill's, making both women legal parents to both children born during their marriage-equivalent relationship.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle of comity in Massachusetts family law concerning out-of-state, non-marital unions that are functionally equivalent to marriage. It establishes that the legal analysis hinges on the substantive rights and obligations conferred by the out-of-state relationship, not its label. This precedent prevents individuals from using interstate moves to evade parental and financial responsibilities established in one state by claiming the relationship is not recognized in another. The ruling reinforces the Commonwealth's strong public policy of ensuring that children have the support of two legal parents whenever possible.
