In Re CKG
173 S.W.3d 714, 2005 WL 2464677 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A woman who gestates and gives birth to children conceived through anonymous egg donation is the legal mother when she and the genetic father intended for her to be the mother prior to conception, and there is no dispute with the egg donor.
Facts:
- Dr. Charles K. G. and Ms. Cindy C., an unmarried couple, decided to have a child together.
- Due to Ms. Cindy C.'s age, they chose to pursue in vitro fertilization using eggs from an anonymous donor and Dr. Charles K. G.'s sperm.
- On May 2, 2000, both parties signed a consent form with a fertility clinic which explicitly stated, 'I, Cindy... will be the mother of any child(ren) born to me as a result of egg donation and hereby accept all the legal responsibilities required of such a parent.'
- The procedure was successful, and Ms. Cindy C. became pregnant with triplets.
- On February 21, 2001, Ms. Cindy C. gave birth to the three children, and she was listed as the mother and Dr. Charles K. G. as the father on the official birth certificates.
- After the birth, the couple lived together, shared parenting responsibilities, and jointly purchased a new home to raise the children.
- The couple's relationship subsequently deteriorated, leading to a legal conflict over Ms. Cindy C.'s parental status.
Procedural Posture:
- Ms. Cindy C. filed a petition in the Juvenile Court of Williamson County to establish parentage, custody, and child support.
- The juvenile court, after a bench trial, ruled that Ms. Cindy C. was the legal mother, awarded joint custody with Ms. Cindy C. as primary custodial parent, and ordered Dr. Charles K. G. to pay child support.
- Dr. Charles K. G. (appellant) appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's judgment, adopting the 'intent test' to establish Ms. Cindy C.'s maternity.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Dr. Charles K. G.'s application for permission to appeal.
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 woman who gestates and gives birth to children conceived via a donated egg and her partner's sperm the legal mother of those children, despite having no genetic connection to them, when both parties intended for her to be the mother prior to conception?
Opinions:
Majority - Drowota, III, C.J.
Yes, Ms. Cindy C. is the legal mother of the children. The court holds that in a maternity dispute involving egg donation, maternity is established where the gestating woman and the genetic father had a pre-conception intent for her to be the mother, she subsequently carried and gave birth to the children, and there is no competing claim from the genetic mother (the egg donor). The court finds that Tennessee's parentage statutes, which define a mother as 'biological,' do not contemplate or control the circumstances of modern assisted reproduction and were not intended to resolve a conflict between a gestational and a genetic mother. The court declines to adopt the broad 'intent test' from other jurisdictions or a strict 'genetic test,' instead crafting a narrow rule based on the specific facts of the case. Restricting legal maternity solely to genetic connection would lead to the absurd result of children having no practical legal mother, as the donor is anonymous and has waived her rights. Therefore, based on the parties' intent, the act of gestation, and the absence of a dispute with the donor, Ms. Cindy C. is the children's legal mother.
Dissenting - Birch, Jr., J.
No, Ms. Cindy C. is not the legal mother. The majority opinion improperly engages in judicial legislation by ignoring the plain meaning of Tennessee's parentage statutes. The legislature explicitly defined a 'mother' as a 'biological mother' and 'biological parents' as those who 'genetically conceived the child.' Since Ms. Cindy C. has no genetic connection to the children, she does not meet the statutory definition of a mother. The court's fact-specific, multi-factor test creates legal uncertainty and usurps the legislature's role in addressing complex public policy matters like assisted reproduction. The proper and established legal remedy for a non-biological individual to gain parental rights is through the statutory adoption process, which Ms. Cindy C. should have pursued.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a specific, fact-based exception to the traditional genetic definition of maternity in Tennessee, applying only to certain assisted reproduction scenarios. By rejecting both the broad California 'intent test' and a strict genetic test, the court established a hybrid, multi-factor analysis that values both pre-conception intent and the biological reality of gestation. The court's explicit and repeated call for legislative action underscores the judiciary's reluctance to create broad new parentage rules, signaling that the law remains unsettled for more complex disputes, such as those involving a known egg donor or a contractual surrogate.
