Patton v. Vanterpool
806 S.E.2d 493, 302 Ga. 253 (2017)
Rule of Law:
The irrebuttable presumption of legitimacy for children conceived by "artificial insemination" under OCGA § 19-7-21 applies only to the introduction of semen into the female reproductive tract for in vivo fertilization and does not extend to children conceived by in vitro fertilization (IVF), which involves fertilization outside the body and embryo transfer.
Facts:
- David Patton and Jocelyn Vanterpool, M.D. were married for approximately three years.
- During their marriage, Jocelyn desired to have a child and both spouses consented to Jocelyn undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment, which would involve both donor ova and donor sperm.
- On November 10, 2014, Jocelyn traveled to the Czech Republic to undergo the IVF procedure.
- Four days later, on November 14, 2014, David and Jocelyn's final judgment and decree of divorce was entered, stating that the parties neither had nor were expecting children of the marriage.
- On June 6, 2015, approximately 29 weeks after the IVF procedure, Jocelyn gave birth to a child as a result of the November 2014 IVF procedure.
Procedural Posture:
- In January 2014, David Patton filed a complaint for divorce against Jocelyn Vanterpool, M.D. in the superior court.
- On November 14, 2014, a final judgment and decree of divorce was entered, which incorporated the parties' settlement agreement.
- Jocelyn subsequently moved the superior court to set aside the decree of divorce, seeking to include the minor child in the divorce agreement, but this motion was denied.
- Jocelyn thereafter instituted a paternity action against David in the superior court, alleging he gave written consent for IVF and that OCGA § 19-7-21 created an irrebuttable presumption of paternity.
- David responded by arguing he did not meaningfully consent to IVF and that OCGA § 19-7-21 was unconstitutional.
- The trial court (superior court) granted Jocelyn summary judgment on the issue of paternity.
- In September 2016, the Georgia Supreme Court granted David's (Appellant's) application for discretionary appeal to address whether OCGA § 19-7-21 applies to children conceived by IVF and, if so, its constitutionality.
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 OCGA § 19-7-21, which creates an irrebuttable presumption of legitimacy for children conceived by "artificial insemination" within wedlock with spousal consent, apply to children conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hunstein
No, the irrebuttable presumption of legitimacy under OCGA § 19-7-21 for children conceived by "artificial insemination" does not apply to children conceived by in vitro fertilization (IVF). Justice Hunstein, writing for the majority, concluded that the plain language of OCGA § 19-7-21, which refers only to "artificial insemination," does not encompass IVF. Applying well-established rules of statutory construction, the Court determined that "artificial insemination" has a consistent historical and medical definition involving the introduction of semen into the female reproductive tract to encourage in vivo (inside the body) fertilization. In contrast, IVF involves the fertilization of an ovum outside the body ("in vitro") and the subsequent transfer of the embryo into the uterus. The Court found the term "artificial insemination" unambiguous, citing medical dictionaries and legal encyclopedias to differentiate the procedures. The majority rejected the argument that a narrow construction was overly restrictive, noting that irrebuttable presumptions are generally disfavored and that an expansive reading would allow an exception to swallow the general rule permitting paternity disputes. Furthermore, the Court noted that while the General Assembly enacted OCGA § 19-7-21 in 1964, prior to IVF development, it has demonstrated awareness of reproductive technologies in later amendments to Title 19 (e.g., 2009 "Options to Adoption Act" defining "embryo transfer"). The Legislature's choice not to amend OCGA § 19-7-21 to include IVF, despite this awareness, signifies that the current statute reflects its will.
Dissenting - Presiding Judge McFadden
Yes, the irrebuttable presumption of legitimacy under OCGA § 19-7-21 should apply to children conceived by in vitro fertilization (IVF). Presiding Judge McFadden dissented, arguing that OCGA § 19-7-21 contains a "latent ambiguity" because the General Assembly could not have anticipated the advent of IVF technology when the statute was enacted in 1964. Judge McFadden contended that, in resolving such an ambiguity, courts must apply the "mischief rule," codified in OCGA § 1-3-1(a), which directs judges to "look diligently for the intention of the General Assembly, keeping in view at all times the old law, the evil, and the remedy." The dissent asserted that the "old law" centered on biological connection, the "evil" was the potential for a father to deny a child conceived by donated sperm with consent, and the "remedy" was binding written consent. Extending "artificial insemination" to include IVF, in this context, would align with the legislative intent to protect children like S. and the state's policy favoring legitimating children. The dissent criticized the majority's strict textualist approach, arguing that legislative inaction (failure to amend the statute) is an inherently weak basis for inferring intent, especially given the infrequent citation of the statute and the unusual facts of the case. The dissent emphasized that OCGA § 1-3-1(a) is a deeply rooted principle in Georgia law and should be faithfully administered to prevent absurd consequences and uphold the manifest intention of the General Assembly.
Analysis:
This case underscores the Georgia Supreme Court's commitment to strict textualism in statutory interpretation, even in the face of rapid scientific advancement. The ruling limits the applicability of a significant legitimacy presumption to the precise medical procedure named in the statute, potentially leaving children conceived via other assisted reproductive technologies, such as IVF, without its protection. Future cases involving paternity and legitimacy for children born through evolving reproductive methods will likely require legislative action to clarify or expand existing statutes, rather than relying on judicial interpretation to bridge technological gaps. This decision reinforces that courts will not readily expand statutory language beyond its plain meaning, even when policy arguments for such expansion are compelling.
