LC v. MG & Child Support Enforcement Agency
Citation | 430 P.3d 400 |
Decision Date | 04 October 2018 |
Docket Number | SCAP-16-0000837 |
Parties | LC, Petitioner-Appellant, v. MG AND CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, State of Hawai‘i, Respondents-Appellees. |
Court | Supreme 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
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.
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, LC stated that she was The text message exchange ended when MG responded:
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,
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, [...] [...] When MG asked LC when they should tell people about the pregnancy, LC responded,
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 (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.
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 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-
Treto v. Treto
... ... 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
... ... 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
... ... 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
... ... 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 ... ...