LC v. MG & Child Support Enforcement Agency

Citation430 P.3d 400
Decision Date04 October 2018
Docket NumberSCAP-16-0000837
Parties LC, Petitioner-Appellant, v. MG AND CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, State of Hawai‘i, Respondents-Appellees.
CourtSupreme Court of Hawai'i

Rebecca A. Copeland for petitioner-appellant LC

Peter C. Renn, pro hac vice, and Christopher D. Thomas, Honolulu, for respondent-appellee MG

Clyde J. Wadsworth, Honolulu, for amicus curiae State of Hawai‘i

RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, POLLACK, AND WILSON, JJ.1

OPINION OF THE COURT EXCEPT AS TO PART III(B) AND OPINION AS TO PART III(B) BY NAKAYAMA, J., IN WHICH RECKTENWALD, C.J., JOINS

The Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) was adopted by the Hawai‘i State Legislature in 1975 to "provide substantive legal equality for all children regardless of the marital status of their parents." H. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 190, in 1975 House Journal, at 1019. To that end, the UPA presumes legal paternity in certain circumstances. One such presumption of paternity is the marital presumption, which presumes that a man is the natural father of a child when he and the child's mother are married to each other and the child is born during the marriage. The issue in this case is whether this presumption similarly applies in determining whether a woman married to the child's natural mother is the parent of that child.

Petitioner-Appellant LC sought a divorce from her wife Respondent-Appellee MG in the Family Court of the First Circuit (family court) shortly after a child was born to MG through an artificial insemination procedure. While LC and MG were legally married at the time of the child's birth, LC is not biologically related to the child. After the child was born, LC subsequently sought an order in the family court to disestablish paternity. The family court denied LC's request, determining that under the UPA and Hawaii's Marriage Equality Act (MEA), LC was the child's legal parent. LC appealed, and the case was transferred to this court from the Intermediate Court of Appeals.

For the reasons discussed below, we first hold that both the UPA and the MEA demonstrate that the UPA's marital presumption of paternity applies equally to both men and women. Therefore, because LC and MG were legally married at the time that the child was born, LC is presumed to be the legal mother of the child. Second, we hold that LC did not rebut the presumption of parentage.

Accordingly, we conclude that LC is the legal parent of the child, and affirm the family court's November 1, 2016 Decision and Order denying her request to disestablish paternity.

I. BACKGROUND

LC and MG first met in 2010, and began a relationship in 2011. At that time, LC was a student at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland and MG lived in Silver Spring, Maryland. Also during that time, LC and MG began to discuss the possibility of having a child together. On October, 13, 2013, LC and MG were legally married in Washington, D.C. The day after, both parties visited Shady Grove Fertility Reproductive Science Center (Shady Grove) in Rockville, Maryland. There, they both signed Shady Grove's "Ovulation Induction

, Monitoring and/or Insemination Treatment" form and a "Consent to Accept Donated Sperm from Anonymous Donor." The consent form read in part,

I/We, [MG] ("Sperm Recipient") and [LC] ("Recipient Partner", if applicable) each hereby jointly and individually elect to utilize donor sperm of an anonymous donor recruited by a Sperm Bank ("Donor") which may be used as part of my/our assisted reproductive technology treatments....
....
I have read the "Information Packet for Use of Donor Sperm" as well as this Consent document in its entirety and have had ample time to reach my/our decision free from pressure and coercion, and agree to proceed with my/our participation in the use of donor sperm as stated above.

The parties decided that MG should carry their first child, because she was older and LC was currently serving in the military.

The parties relocated to O‘ahu, Hawai‘i pursuant to LC's military orders and assignment in October 2014. At that time, MG was not employed, and LC financially supported the couple.

In December 2014, LC and MG jointly attended an appointment at the Fertility Institute of Hawai‘i (FIH), met with a physician's assistant, and toured the facility.

In January 2015, LC deployed overseas and MG remained on O‘ahu. While LC was deployed, she continued to communicate with MG regarding MG's plans to become pregnant. On February 23, 2015, MG sent a text message to LC:

I do have to tell you something... I'm so worried about IUI [intrauterine insemination]... I have been checking the PO box every single day waiting for my refund and nothing! My menses is here and I'm supposed to order out [sic] vial on Monday morning. I'm so upset and depressed bc I don't have the extra money right now...

The next day, MG texted LC that "it looks like everything is all good. I start clomid

[2

] tonight and come back in a week. And I'm so happy that I do have ‘time’ to order our vial!" LC responded, "I'm glad everything went ok."

On February 25, 2015, LC (still overseas) and MG discussed their relationship through text messages. When MG asked whether LC was having second thoughts about having a child, LC responded that she "want[ed] to make sure we are truly good before we start a family," and "want[ed] a child more than anything but [wanted] them to have parents that adore each other as well as them." MG asked LC whether she was "backing out." LC responded, "What are you talking about backing out? I have always wanted a child[.]" LC stated that she was "concerned about us. I want a loving family that respects each other[.]" The text message exchange ended when MG responded:

[MG:] The way (from our previous convos), I'd stres [sic] taking the pills for he [sic] past few days per doctor's orders
[MG:] I have been taking the pills since Monday to prepare[.]
[MG:] I forgot to tell you that.
[MG:] Night!

The next day, LC responded, "K @ pills."

On March 2, 2015, a cryobank sent a sperm sample to FIH and billed it to MG. After an ultrasound appointment, MG texted LC about the results of the ultrasound, and stated that FIH would "call [her] later [that day] to let [her] know if we can get IUI tomorrow or Wednesday." After several other texts were sent by MG, LC responded, "Hi honey. Ok. [Talk to you] after my flight. I love you[.]"

On March 4, 2015, MG signed FIH's "Consent for Intrauterine Insemination." Because LC was overseas, she did not sign the consent form. The IUI procedure also took place on March 4, 2015.

On March 19, 2015, MG informed LC via text message that she was pregnant. Five hours later, LC responded, "I'sa pregnant!! I love you baby!!! [...] [Good morning] honey that's great news to awaken to! [...] I get to rub your tummy and feel our baby[.]" When MG asked LC when they should tell people about the pregnancy, LC responded, "You tell me when. I'm telling my mom and brother whenever we do[.]"

Around Mother's Day 2015, while LC was still deployed, she wrote a "Future Mother's Day Card" to MG. Enclosed in the card was a note to "The Future Mother" from "The Future Momma/Papa." The note also contained a poem which referenced MG's pregnancy and stated that "[y]ou will cry, you will smile, you will look into our child[']s eyes, and we will love you through it all." (Emphasis in original.) The note was signed by LC and after the signature, LC further wrote "I will always be here for our family!" Similarly, on June 8, 2015, LC addressed a postcard to "[MG] & Future Son/Daughter," which stated that LC had gotten MG "a spa kit to let [her] pamper [herself] and for my future child I bought you the softest/coolest Iceland bear I could find. I love you both! Hope you enjoy your gifts!" (Formatting altered.)

When LC returned to Hawai‘i in September 2015, she attended both an ultrasound appointment and a lamaze class with MG.

On October 7, 2015, LC filed a motion for divorce from MG in the family court. On November 11, 2015, MG gave birth to the child at Castle Medical Center on O‘ahu. The child's birth certificate lists MG as the "mother" and LC as the "co-parent". At the time that the child was born, LC and MG were not legally divorced; divorce proceedings were pending.

A. Family Court Trial

On January 11, 2016, LC sought an order in the family court to disestablish parentage.3 LC also submitted a declaration with her petition that stated that she "did not sign any documents stating that she consented to the alleged in vitro fertilization that lead [sic] to the pregnancy," that the child born to MG was not hers, "genetically or otherwise," and that she "never held [the] child out to be her own." (Emphasis in original).

At trial, MG first called two witnesses to testify as to LC's involvement in MG's medical appointments on O‘ahu. First, Robin Washowsky (Washowsky), the business manager of FIH, testified about MG's medical records and LC's consent to MG's IUI procedure. On cross-examination, after being asked to confirm that there is a line for a partner's initials on the "Consent to Receive Cryopreserved Sperm" form, Washowsky was asked how the absence of a spouse's signature on a consent form would affect the patient's procedure.4 Washowsky responded that "[i]f there's a spouse here, we can have them sign. But in the absence of a spouse, we would still go through with the procedure." Washowsky further testified that there were no signatures or initials from LC anywhere in MG's FIH medical file. Nevertheless, Washowsky testified on redirect examination that if FIH received a withdrawal of consent to an artificial insemination procedure, the clinic would have a duty to inform the patient of that withdrawal. Washowsky further stated that there was no evidence in MG's medical record that MG was notified of any withdrawal of consent.

Dr. Emilie Stickley (Dr. Stickley), an OB/GYN at Pali Women's Health Center (PWHC), also testified. Dr. Stickley testified that LC attended a July 2015 medical appointment via video conference with MG and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Treto v. Treto
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 23 Enero 2020
    ... ... Jennifer as a parental conservator and ordered her to pay child support. By a single issue, Jennifer argues that the trial court erred by ... children of Texas, and the resulting Texas policy regarding enforcement.The function of child support is to help a custodial parent maintain an ... ...
  • Sakal v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Hawaiian Monarch
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • 18 Junio 2020
    ... ... AOAO Hawaiian Monarch's memorandum submitted in support of its motion restated Kogen's memorandum verbatim. In opposition, Sakal ... MG & Child Support Enf't Agency , 143 Hawaii 302, 320, 430 P.3d 400, 418 (2018) ... ...
  • Meyers v. Meyers
    • United States
    • Hawaii Court of Appeals
    • 25 Agosto 2022
    ... ... had no minor children at that time; (3) awarded no spousal support; and (4) divided and distributed Lukela and Christina's assets and debts ... HFCR Rule 60(b) implicates the jurisdiction of the family court." Child Support Enf't Agency v. Doe , 98 Hawaii 499, 503, 51 P.3d 366, 370 (2002) ... ...
  • Meyers v. Meyers
    • United States
    • Hawaii Court of Appeals
    • 25 Agosto 2022
    ... ... at that time; (3) awarded no spousal support; and (4) divided ... and distributed Lukela and Christina's assets ... implicates the jurisdiction of the family court." ... Child Support Enf't Agency v. Doe , 98 ... Hawai'i 499, 503, 51 P.3d ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT