Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
K. v. N.
No. 396 MDA 2002 (Pa. Super. Ct. Cumberland County Dec. 17, 2002) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55114
Description
Former Domestic Partner Must Pay Child Support to Biological Mother of Their Children Conceived Through Artificial Insemination
Abstract
A Pennsylvania appellate court, applying equitable principles, held
that a former domestic partner must pay child support to the
biological mother of five children conceived through artificial
insemination and born during their long-term lesbian relationship.
When appellant partner and appellee biological mother separated,
mother moved to California with their children. After partner
sought custody, mother sought child support. Partner alleged that
mother had no legal cause of action against her for child support
without an order granting her legal custody or in loco
parentis status. Meanwhile, the trial court granted each party
legal custody of the children and granted partner partial physical
custody. Finding that partner’s conduct estopped her from
claiming that she was not liable for support, the trial court
ordered her to pay child support, some unreimbursed medical
expenses, and arrearages to mother. On appeal, partner claimed that
she should not be required to pay support because she was not the
biological or adoptive parent. Reviewing the case as one of first
impression, the appellate court ruled that, in the absence of
legislative mandates, equity mandated that partner not maintain the
status of in loco parentis to pursue an action as to the
children or allege that she acquired rights in relation to them and
at the same time deny any obligation for support merely for lack of
an agreement to do so. To protect the children’s best
interest, both parties were to be responsible for the
children’s emotional and financial needs, although statutory
law did not create a legal relationship. Affirming the trial court,
the appellate court also held that, where a duty of support was
based on equitable rather than legal grounds, the child support
guidelines still determined the support amount.
