T.F. v. B.L.
813 N.E.2d 1244, 5 A.L.R. 6th 643, 442 Mass. 522 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agreement between unmarried cohabitants to create and co-parent a child is unenforceable as against public policy, and a court cannot impose a child support obligation on a person who is not a biological or legal parent without statutory authority.
Facts:
- T.F. and B.L., two women, began living together in 1996 and held a commitment ceremony in 1999, pooling their finances.
- After initial reluctance, B.L. agreed in the summer of 1999 to have a child with T.F.
- The couple jointly participated in the process of T.F.'s artificial insemination, including attending medical appointments, selecting a sperm donor, and using joint funds for expenses.
- T.F. became pregnant in December 1999 as a result of a second insemination attempt.
- The couple's relationship deteriorated, and B.L. moved out in May 2000, before the child was born.
- Prior to leaving, B.L. expressed a desire to adopt the future child and made promises of financial support.
- T.F. gave birth to a boy in July 2000.
- After the birth, B.L. visited the child, participated in naming him, referred to him as 'my wonderful, beautiful boy' to friends, and gave T.F. $800, but later ceased all contact and refused further support.
Procedural Posture:
- T.F. filed a complaint against B.L. in the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court seeking child support on theories of promissory estoppel and breach of an oral contract.
- The Probate and Family Court judge found that an agreement 'to create a child' existed and that B.L. had breached it.
- Rather than issuing a support order, the judge reported the matter to the Appeals Court for a determination of whether 'parenthood by contract is the law of Massachusetts.'
- The Supreme Judicial Court granted T.F.'s application for direct appellate review of the issue.
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 an implied agreement between two unmarried women to conceive and raise a child create an enforceable contractual obligation for the non-biological partner to pay child support?
Opinions:
Majority - Cowin, J.
No. An implied agreement to co-parent a child is unenforceable because it violates the public policy protecting freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life. The court acknowledged that the parties' conduct created an implied contract to create a child. However, citing A.Z. v. B.Z., the court reasoned that prior agreements to enter into familial relationships, such as parenthood, should not be enforced against individuals who later reconsider their decision, as forced procreation is not an area amenable to judicial enforcement. Furthermore, the duty of child support is statutory, and B.L. does not qualify as a parent under any Massachusetts statute (e.g., through biology or adoption). The court's equity powers cannot be used to create new legal obligations where none exist at law, nor can the 'best interests of the child' standard be used to impose financial duties on a legal stranger.
Concurrence - Greaney, J.
Yes. While 'parenthood by contract' is not the law, the defendant's agreement to create a child includes a severable and enforceable promise to provide financial support that should be enforced by the court. This opinion agrees that parenthood is a legal status that cannot be conferred by private contract. However, it argues that the defendant's deliberate and extensive participation in the child's conception created a distinct and enforceable promise to support the child. Given the strong public policy of ensuring children are supported by those responsible for their creation, the Probate and Family Court should use its broad equity jurisdiction to enforce this promise to avoid injustice to both the plaintiff and the child. The dissent argues that a person cannot participate in bringing a child into the world and then walk away from a support obligation they clearly undertook.
Analysis:
This decision firmly rejects the concept of 'parenthood by contract,' prioritizing an individual's freedom to make personal family decisions over contractual obligations. It establishes a clear precedent in Massachusetts that child support obligations derive exclusively from legal parentage as defined by statute, not from private agreements or conduct alone. The ruling highlights a significant gap in the law regarding the rights and responsibilities of non-biological parents in non-traditional families, suggesting that legislative action may be necessary to address child support in situations involving assisted reproduction and same-sex couples where formal adoption has not occurred.
