Shareholder Helen Casale was interviewed by the Pennsylvania Bar Association Family Law Section’s Law in the Family podcast about a recent Pennsylvania Superior Court decision in Glover v. Junior, where a 2-1 majority denied parental rights to Nicole Junior who was not genetically related to a child carried by her then-wife, Chanel Glover.
In the episode titled, “Contract Parentage Debate Goes to the Superior Court,” Helen talks about how this case addresses asserting parentage and assisted reproductive technology contracts. The podcast covers a range of issues, including the steps the same-sex couple took to demonstrate the intent to conceive a child together by entering an intended parentage contract (when one parent is unable to be genetically related to a child), how the PA Superior Court should have looked at the case and if there was anything else the two parties could have done to intend parentage.
Helen lays out what intent-based parentage means, how to properly identify if both parties are contributing towards the planning of the family and decipher what the intent of each parent is. Helen explains why it was unfair for the majority in this decision to only look at the contract, why the trial court judge did do a good job outlining the facts in case and how the dissent argued one could apply contract principles to this case based on everything that was outlined in the contract.
Helen also explains how this case has implications for heterosexual couples. If a straight couple got married, but the husband was unable to impregnate his wife, so the wife had to use a sperm donor to conceive a child they would be going through the exact same process as same-sex couples. If the straight couple divorced before the child was born, Helen thinks the Glover v. Junior decision would have to be applied to this scenario.
The Glover v. Junior case has implications for everyone across the Commonwealth of Pa. and Helen hopes that if the legislature does not act, that the Supreme Court of Pa. does take action.
