Family Matters

Intent-Based Parentage is Confirmed by the PA Supreme Court

The PA Supreme Court recognized intent-based parentage as an extension of current parenting law through the case of Glover v. Junior, 9 EAP 202 (Pa. 2025). Intent-based recognizes intended parents’ ability to establish legal parentage when using Assisted Reproductive Technology (“ART”) to conceive a child.

Prior to Glover, Pennsylvania recognized four paths to establish parentage: biology, adoption, equity, and contract.

Biology-based parentage

Biology-based parentage exists when a parent is genetically related to the child.

Adoption-based parentage

Adoption-based parentage exists when a parent who is not related to the child goes through a formal legal process to create legal parental rights.

Parentage through equity

Parentage through equity has two parts.

• The first is the presumption of parentage that exists within an intact marriage, presuming that spouses are co-parents.
• The second is a type of de facto parentage that Pennsylvania calls parentage by estoppel.

Parentage by estoppel

Parentage by estoppel ensures that a parent who holds out a child as their own, cannot later walk away from the child. Parentage by contract is exactly what it sounds like, a contract that establishes or prevents the establishment of parentage. It is used in accordance with ART, and usually prevents genetic donors from becoming a parent when they do not intend to do so.

The Glover case

The Glover case fell through the cracks of Pennsylvania parentage law. Glover and Junior were two women who were married to each other and pursued a child through in vitro fertilization (“IVF”). Glover was going to carry the child and be genetically related to the child because her egg was used with a sperm donor. Junior was intended to be the co-parent but would not be genetically related to the child. IVF was successful, but during Glover’s pregnancy, the marriage fell apart. The parties separated with Junior moving out of the marital residence prior to the birth of the child. Junior sued to establish parentage prior to the birth of the child.  The dispute made its way to the PA Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court recognized the original intent of the parties and confirmed Junior’s status as a parent.

Intent-based parentage

An intent-based parentage analysis requires looking at all relevant periods to determine the intent of the parties.

This could include “pre-conception, conception, during gestation, during birth, and post-birth.”

In Glover, the Supreme Court looked at the periods of preconception, conception, and gestation, because the matter was filed prior to birth. During these timeframes, the parties had entered multiple contracts related to the ART process, jointly picked a sperm donor (who was chosen in part because he resembled Junior), shared the cost of the IVF, Junior administered some of Glover’s medical injections, jointly attended IVF and prenatal appointments, jointly planned a baby shower, picked out a name, and jointly retained a lawyer to begin the process to confirm Junior’s parentage legally.  It is noteworthy that both parties signed affidavits stating their intent to co-parent and have equal parenting rights and obligations to the child. Despite the separation of the parties and the eventual termination of their marriage, the Supreme Court found the parties had a clear intent to raise the child as co-parents. Further, this child would not exist except for the joint efforts of the parties.

Contract parentage was insufficient in the Glover case.

Glover and Junior did not enter into a written or oral contract with each other about the parentage of the child. Contracts usually involve surrogacy or the donation of genetic material. There was a contract in the Glover case with regard to the sperm donor, but it prevented the donor from becoming a parent, it did not create parentage for Junior.  The Supreme Court observed that “there is little perceived need for two intended parents to enter into a written contract with each other to provide that the non-biological parent will have parental rights.”  Though the need to contract may not be perceived, the Supreme Court urged “couples in similar circumstances to document their intentions in writing.”  Even if the writing is not found to be a contract, it would be evidence of intent.

Presumption of parentage was inapplicable because the parties were no longer in an intact marriage.

Parentage by estoppel was not applicable because the child was not born when the litigation started.

While the parties had started the process of legally confirming parentage upon Junior, the marriage dissolved before the process was completed.

Where already established parentage law fell short, intent-based parentage confirmed the initial intent of Glover and Junior.  It promoted the public policy of Pennsylvania, more specifically it created stability for the child, promoted financial support for the child, and protected the parties’ right to parent their child.

The law of Pennsylvania continues to evolve to reflect the reality of society. This includes evolving with respect to ART and allowing more people the ability to build a family. The Supreme Court notes that “parents who conceive using ART essentially demonstrate their stability and dedication to a child by going through a more rigorous, time-consuming, and expensive process to conceive a child than do many parents who conceived through sexual intercourse.” 

If you are looking to build your family via Assisted Reproductive Technology or you are looking to confirm your parentage after a relationship break-up, reach out to an attorney at Obermayer to help ensure your legal right to parent your child.

The information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice, is not a substitute for legal counsel, and should not be relied on as such. For legal advice or answers to specific questions, please contact one of our attorneys.