Gartner v. Iowa Dep't of Pub. Health
| Decision Date | 23 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–0243.,12–0243. |
| Citation | 830 N.W.2d 335 |
| Parties | Heather Martin GARTNER and Melissa Gartner, Individually and as Next Friend s of MacKenzie Jean Gartner, a Minor Child, Appellees, v. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Unconstitutional as Applied
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Julie F. Pottorff, Deputy Attorney General, and Heather L. Adams, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.
Camilla B. Taylor and Kenneth D. Upton, Jr., Chicago, Illinois, and Sharon K. Malheiro of Davis, Brown, Koehn, Shors & Roberts, P.C., Des Moines, for appellees.
Timm W. Reid, Des Moines, and Byron J. Babione, Scottsdale, Arizona, for amicus curiae Iowa Family Policy Center.
Lance W. Lange and Nicole N. Nayima of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Des Moines, and Michael A. Ponto, of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae National Association of Social Workers, Iowa Chapter.
Amanda C. Goad, New York, New York, and Randall C. Wilson of ACLU of Iowa Foundation, Inc., Des Moines, for amici curiae American Civil Liberties Union Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa.
Catherine C. Dietz–Kilen and Earl B. Kavanaugh of Harrison & Dietz–Kilen, P.L.C., Des Moines, and Shannon P. Minter, Catherine P. Sakimura, and Angela K. Perone, San Francisco, California, for amici curiae professors of law.
In this appeal, we must decide whether Iowa Code section 144.13(2) (2011) requires the Iowa Department of Public Health to list as a parent on a child's birth certificate the nonbirthing spouse in a lesbian marriage when the child was born to one of the spouses during the couple's marriage. The district court interpreted the statute to require the Department to issue a birth certificate listing the spouse as the child's parent. The district court also stayed its ruling as to any other birth certificates the Department may issue to married lesbian couples pending the appeal of the district court's ruling.
On appeal, we conclude that we cannot interpret the statute in the same manner as the district court. However, we do find section 144.13(2) as applied to married lesbian couples violates the equal protection clauses found in article I, sections 1 and 6 of the Iowa Constitution. Accordingly, the Department must presumptively list on a child's birth certificate the nonbirthing spouse in a lesbian marriage when the child was born to one of the spouses during their marriage. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the district court ordering the Department to issue a birth certificate naming both spouses as parents. Therefore, we remand the case to the district court, order the district court to lift the stay, and order the district court to remand the case to the Department for issuance of a birth certificate also listing the nonbirthing spouse as the child's parent.
A. The Gartner Family. Melissa and Heather Gartner are a lesbian couple. They have been in a loving, committed relationship since December 2003. On March 18, 2006, they participated in a commitment ceremony with family and friends.
The couple dreamed of the day they would become parents. Acting on that desire, they began planning their family. The couple agreed Heather would serve as the biological mother, but both would act as equal parents to their children. Melissa decided to stay home to be the children's primary caregiver, while Heather worked outside the home.
Heather conceived their first child by anonymous donor insemination. Melissa participated in every step of Heather's pregnancy, which included choosing the anonymous sperm donor. Melissa was present for the birth of the couple's first child.
Because Melissa and Heather were not legally married at the time of the first child's birth, the couple went through formal adoption procedures to ensure Melissa's name was on the child's birth certificate. The Gartners successfully navigated the adoption process after both Melissa and Heather underwent background checks for criminal misconduct and sexual abuse. Heather characterized the adoption process as expensive, intrusive, and laborious. Once the couple finalized the adoption, the Department issued the child's birth certificate, which named both Heather and Melissa as parents.
Two years later, in April 2009, we decided Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009), which held Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. Thereafter, the state began solemnizing same-sex marriages. Melissa and Heather Gartner subsequently married in Des Moines on June 13. Heather was approximately six months pregnant with the couple's second child, Mackenzie Jean Gartner, at the time of their marriage.
Three months later, on September 19, Heather gave birth to Mackenzie. Heather conceived Mackenzie using the same anonymous donor as for their first child.
B. The Birth Certificate. The day after Mackenzie's birth, Heather and Melissa completed a form at the hospital to obtain Mackenzie's birth certificate. The Department provided the form. On the form, the Gartners indicated that both Heather and Melissa are Mackenzie's parents and that they are legally married.
The Department issued Mackenzie's birth certificate on approximately November 19. The certificate only listed Heather as Mackenzie's parent. The space for the second parent's name was blank.
C. Proceedings. After receiving Mackenzie's birth certificate naming only Heather, the Gartners sent a letter to the Department requesting a birth certificate recognizing both Heather and Melissa as Mackenzie's parents. The Department denied the request. The Department refusedto place the name of the nonbirthing spouse in a lesbian marriage on the birth certificate without the spouse first adopting the child, pursuant to Iowa Code section 144.23(1). The Department indicated: “The system for registration of births in Iowa currently recognizes the biological and ‘gendered’ roles of ‘mother’ and ‘father,’ grounded in the biological fact that a child has one biological mother and one biological father....”
The Gartners then filed a mandamus action in the district court. The Department moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After various motions, amendments, and refilings, the district court dismissed the Gartners' mandamus action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The district court determined the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act (IAPA) provided the Gartners with the exclusive means for obtaining review of the Department's decision.
Accordingly, the Gartners brought this subsequent action for judicial review under the IAPA. The district court ordered the Department to issue Mackenzie a birth certificate naming Melissa as a legal parent. The district court found under the presumption of parentage, the Department erred in not naming Melissa on Mackenzie's birth certificate. However, the district court did not reach the constitutional issues, focusing instead on the Department's interpretation of section 144.13(2).
The Department timely filed its notice of appeal and a motion to stay the district court's ruling. The district court denied the stay as to the Gartners, but granted it for other birth certificates the Department may issue while the appeal of the district court's ruling in this case is pending. Thus, the district court required the Department to issue the Gartners a birth certificate listing both spouses as parents, but did not require the Department to extend the same practice to other married lesbian couples.
We must decide if we can interpret Iowa Code section 144.13(2), otherwise known as Iowa's presumption of parentage statute, to require the Department to list as a parent on a child's birth certificate the nonbirthing lesbian spouse, when the other spouse conceived the child during the marriage using an anonymous sperm donor. If we cannot adopt such an interpretation of the statute, we then must determine whether the Department's refusal to list the nonbirthing lesbian spouse on the child's birth certificate violates the equal protection clauses in article I, sections 1 and 6 of the Iowa Constitution or the due process clause in article I, section 9 of the Iowa Constitution.
A. Statutory Interpretation. An individual adversely affected by administrative agency action is entitled to judicial review. Iowa Code § 17A.19(1). Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) of the IAPA governs judicial review of agency decisions. NextEra Energy Res. LLC v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 815 N.W.2d 30, 36 (Iowa 2012). The Department is an agency governed by the IAPA. See, e.g., Birchansky Real Estate, L.C. v. Iowa Dep't of Pub. Health, 737 N.W.2d 134, 138 (Iowa 2007) (); Greenwood Manor v. Iowa Dep't of Pub. Health, 641 N.W.2d 823, 828, 833–35 (Iowa 2002) ().
The agency action at issue here is the Department's interpretation of the presumption of parentage in Iowa Code section 144.13(2). Specifically, the Departmentinterpreted section 144.13(2), containing the terms husband, father, and paternity, to apply only to a male spouse in an opposite-sex marriage, not a female spouse in a lesbian marriage.
The deference we give to the Department's decision depends upon the legislative grant of authority to the agency. If the legislature “clearly vested the agency with the authority to interpret the statute at issue,” we reverse the Department's decision only when its interpretation is “irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable.” NextEra, 815 N.W.2d at 36–37 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). However, if the legislature did not clearly vest the agency with such authority, we reverse the agency decision if it relies on an erroneous interpretation of the law. Id. at 37.
To determine the breadth of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds
...its holding that the Act violates PPH's equal protection rights on any basis supported by the record. See Gartner v. Iowa Dep't of Pub. Health , 830 N.W.2d 335, 350 (Iowa 2013). Thus, we consider whether the Act is subject to strict scrutiny. PPH contends that strict scrutiny applies becaus......
-
Behm v. City of Cedar Rapids
...the ATE ordinance’s ostensible purpose, which provides the context for evaluating the classification. See Gartner v. Iowa Dep’t of Pub. Health , 830 N.W.2d 335, 350–51 (Iowa 2013). Plaintiffs proceed to argue that the asserted state interest of safety must be "realistically conceivable" and......
-
State v. Christensen
...v. Kennedy , 846 N.W.2d 517, 520 (Iowa 2014) (Confrontation Clauses under Federal and Iowa Constitutions); Gartner v. Iowa Dep't of Pub. Health , 830 N.W.2d 335, 344 (Iowa 2013) (constitutionality of statutes or administrative rule); State v. Mootz , 808 N.W.2d 207, 214 (Iowa 2012) (state a......
-
Behm v. City of Cedar Rapids & Gatso United States, Inc.
...as the ATE ordinance's ostensible purpose, which provides the context for evaluating the classification. See Gartner v. Iowa Dep't of Pub. Health, 830 N.W.2d 335, 350-51 (Iowa 2013). Plaintiffs proceed to argue that the asserted state interest of safety must be "realistically conceivable" a......
-
Certifying Identity
...G. Joslin, Marriage, Biology, and Federal Benefits , 98 IOWA L. REV. 1467, 1493 (2013). 236 See Gartner v. Iowa Dep’t of Public Health, 830 N.W.2d 335, 340 (Iowa 2013) (challenging the Iowa Department of Public Health’s refusal to afford a same-sex married partner the marital presumption of......
-
State Lawmaking on Federal Constitutional Childcare Parents: More Principled Allocations of Powers and More Rational Distinctions
...Child Support, 45 Fam. L.Q. 219 (2011) [hereinafter Marriage, Parentage, and Child Support], and Gartner v. Iowa Dep't of Pub. Health, 830 N.W.2d 335, 346 n.1 (Iowa 2013) (organizing state statutes governing presumptions of parentage into three categories). Recently, marital parentage presu......