Earlier this year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a watershed decision in Glover v. Junior, adopting the doctrine of parentage by intent in the context of assisted reproductive technology.
This decision brings important legal protections for Pennsylvania families who conceive children through IVF or surrogacy, where at least one of the parents will not be biologically related to the child. Under parentage by intent, the non-biological parent can be legally recognized as a parent of the child solely by virtue of the couple’s intent to conceive and raise the child together, without adoption or a formal contract establishing parentage.
Hangley Aronchick helped bring about this result by authoring an amicus brief on behalf of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Pennsylvania Chapter, the Academy of Adoption & Assisted Reproduction Attorneys, and the Pennsylvania Interbranch Commission for Gender, Racial & Ethnic Fairness. Hangley lawyers also coordinated an effort by national and local groups including GLAD, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the ACLU, the Mazzoni Center, and the Philadelphia and Pennsylvania Bar Associations to author and submit additional amicus briefs, all arguing for the adoption of parentage by intent.
Amicus briefs often play a crucial role in cases like Glover that involve a significant issue of public importance. Amici and their lawyers can have significant influence in these cases because they are free to make arguments in favor of a doctrine, rather than in favor of a party. An effective amicus brief helps the court see the big picture—not merely arguing that a particular party should win the case, but that the law should evolve in a particular direction.
That is precisely what Hangley’s amicus brief did in the Glover case, and its impact is evident in the Court’s opinion. The majority cited Hangley’s amicus brief four times, calling its arguments “exceptionally helpful.” Moreover, the majority endorsed the analysis in Hangley’s amicus brief that the doctrine of parentage by intent was necessary to fill a gap in pre-existing Pennsylvania family law. The majority similarly echoed the arguments in Hangley’s amicus brief that other states have adopted parentage by intent.
Hangley’s participation in the Glover case is just the latest example of the firm’s commitment to taking a stand on important legal issues that affect the rights of Pennsylvanians. The firm has been proud to participate in a number of similarly impactful cases, such as Whitewood v. Wolf, the 2014 decision that legalized same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania. Hangley’s commitment to the public interest means the firm will always be there to put time and energy into causes that matter to our clients.
