Okoli v. Okoli
81 Mass. App. Ct. 371, 2012 WL 687850, 963 N.E.2d 730 (2012)
Rule of Law:
Under G. L. c. 46, § 4B, a husband's "consent" to his wife's artificial insemination means consent to create a child, rather than an affirmative intent to become a parent, and such consent establishes his legal paternity and child support obligation, which cannot be bargained away by prior agreement.
Facts:
- Chukwudera B. Okoli (husband) and Blessing N. Okoli (wife) were married in Boston on October 4, 1991.
- The parties unsuccessfully attempted to have children through a variety of means since 1992 and were on a waiting list for donor eggs and sperm for in vitro fertilization (IVF) when they separated in November 2000.
- Around November 2001, donor eggs became available, and Blessing sought Chukwudera’s consent for Boston IVF, Inc., to begin the IVF process.
- With the assistance of a family friend, Amad Onujiogu, the parties signed a written agreement on December 20, 2001, in which Chukwudera consented to Blessing’s fertility treatment and recognized any offspring, but stipulated he would have no financial obligations.
- Chukwudera agreed to execute the 2001 agreement in exchange for Blessing's continued support of his citizenship application.
- Blessing then underwent several unsuccessful IVF treatments, each requiring new consent from Chukwudera, on many of which he added a notation that he was signing pursuant to the 2001 agreement.
- On November 13, 2002, Chukwudera signed the final consent form for the procedure that resulted in a viable pregnancy.
- Blessing gave birth to twin children conceived through IVF using donor sperm and donor eggs.
Procedural Posture:
- Blessing N. Okoli (wife) and Chukwudera B. Okoli (husband) underwent divorce proceedings in the Probate and Family Court.
- On August 27, 2009, a judge of the Probate and Family Court issued a judgment of divorce.
- The probate judge ordered Chukwudera to pay child support for the twin minor children of the marriage.
- The probate judge ruled that Chukwudera was the legal father of the children because he consented to the artificial insemination of his wife.
- Chukwudera B. Okoli (husband) appealed the order for support and its amount to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
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 husband's conditional consent to his wife's artificial insemination, given without the express intent to become a parent or under alleged duress and fraud, satisfy the "consent" requirement of G. L. c. 46, § 4B, thereby establishing his legal paternity and obligation for child support?
Opinions:
Majority - Mills, J.
Yes, a husband's consent to his wife's artificial insemination, even if conditioned on an agreement not to pay child support and despite allegations of duress or fraud, satisfies the "consent" requirement of G. L. c. 46, § 4B, thereby establishing his legal paternity and child support obligation, provided he intended to create a child. The court interpreted "consent" under G. L. c. 46, § 4B, to mean consent to create a child, rather than an affirmative intent to become a parent. This interpretation is supported by previous Massachusetts cases such as T.F. v. B.L. (442 Mass. 522, 532 (2004)) and A.Z. v. B.Z. (431 Mass. 150, 162 (2000)), which emphasized that courts should not inquire into subjective intent in familial relationships due to their "delicate and intimate character" and evidentiary concerns, and that prior agreements to avoid parenthood should not be enforced. The plain language of G. L. c. 46, § 4B, only mentions consent to the artificial insemination itself, not consent to assume parental responsibilities, contrasting with statutes in other jurisdictions (e.g., District of Columbia) that explicitly require intent to be a parent. The court found persuasive parallels in cases from other jurisdictions like Laura WW. v. Peter WW. (51 A.D.3d 211 (N.Y. 2008)), equating the volitional act of consenting to artificial insemination with the volitional act of sexual intercourse, where intent regarding parental status does not negate responsibility for a resulting child. While traditional consent defenses like fraud, mistake, or duress are theoretically applicable, the husband failed to properly brief his duress argument, providing insufficient legal standard or factual predicate. His fraud claim regarding a forged signature was dismissed based on the probate judge's credibility determination, which the appeals court declined to disturb. His argument of fraudulent inducement was also insufficiently briefed. Finally, the court found no clear error in the probate judge’s calculation of the wife’s income for child support purposes, noting that parents cannot bargain away their children's rights to support.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the meaning of "consent" in the context of artificial insemination statutes, establishing an objective standard focused on the intent to create a child rather than the subjective intent to assume parental responsibilities. It reinforces the principle that agreements attempting to contract away parental obligations for future children are unenforceable, prioritizing the child's right to support, a fundamental aspect of family law. The decision also serves as a critical reminder to legal practitioners about the importance of proper and thorough appellate briefing, as the husband's potentially valid defenses of duress and fraud were dismissed due to inadequate presentation. Future cases will likely rely on this objective definition of consent, making it harder for individuals who knowingly consent to reproductive procedures to later disclaim parental responsibility based on subjective intent or unproven contractual conditions.
