Okoli v. Okoli

• Decision Date: 06 March 2012
• Docket Number: No. 10–P–1351.,10–P–1351.
• Citation: 81 Mass.App.Ct. 371,963 N.E.2d 730
• Parties: Chukwudera B. OKOLI v. Blessing N. OKOLI (No. 1).
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

81 Mass.App.Ct. 371

963 N.E.2d 730

Chukwudera B. OKOLI

v.Blessing N. OKOLI (No. 1).

No. 10–P–1351.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued Sept. 13, 2011.Decided March 6, 2012.

Dana Alan Curhan, Boston, for Chukwudera B. Okoli.

Collins L. Akukwe for Blessing N. Okoli.

Present: MILLS, SMITH, & WOLOHOJIAN, JJ.

MILLS, J.

In a judgment of divorce dated August 27, 2009, a judge of the Probate and Family Court ordered Chukwudera B. Okoli (husband) to pay child support for the twin minor children of his marriage to Blessing N. Okoli (wife). The twins, born May 12, 2003, were conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF) using donor sperm and donor eggs, and the probate judge ruled that the husband was the legal father of the children because he consented to the artificial insemination of his wife.¹ On appeal, he challenges the order for support and its amount. We affirm.

Facts. The following facts, found by the probate judge, are supported by the record. The parties were married in Boston on October 4, 1991, and separated in November of 2000.² They had unsuccessfully attempted to have children since 1992 through a variety of means. When they separated, they were on a waiting list for donor eggs to pair with donor sperm for another attempt at IVF. Around November, 2001, donor eggs became available, and the wife sought the husband's consent for Boston IVF, Inc., a fertility clinic, to begin the IVF process. The husband balked initially, and the wife asked Amad Onujiogu, a family friend, to intercede.³

With Mr. Onujiogu's assistance, the parties signed a written agreement on December 20, 2001 (2001 agreement), providing in relevant part:

“That [the husband] hereby gives his consent for [the wife's] fertility treatment[,][e]mbryo freezing and disposition of eggs, sperm and embryo[.]

“That [the husband] will recognize any offspring from this exercise as previously and mutually agreed to by both parties.

“That since the financial assets of the family [have] been shared, [the husband] does not have any financial obligations with regards to the above exercise and [its] results[.]

“That [the wife] will not at any time ask or sue for any other financial obligation regarding the above exercise and [its] results.”

The judge found that the husband consented to the wife's IVF procedure conditioned on these terms.

The judge also found that the husband agreed to execute the 2001 agreement in exchange for the wife's continued support of his citizenship application. ⁴ When the marriage began to deteriorate,

“the Wife used her sponsorship of the Husband's citizenship application as a lever to get what she wanted from him. She consistently threatened him that if he refused to do what she wanted, she would withdraw her support of his application. The Husband wanted to become a U.S. citizen and did not want her to withdraw her support, so when he could he acquiesced to the Wife's requests.”Even though the 2001 agreement contained no written reference to the citizenship application, the judge found that “[i]n exchange for the Wife's continued support of his ‘green card’ application, the Husband agreed that he would provide written consents for the Wife's fertility treatments.” The wife then underwent several unsuccessful IVF treatments at Boston IVF. Each time, a new consent from the husband was required. On many of the forms, he added a notation that he was signing pursuant to the parties' 2001 agreement. On November 13, 2002, he signed the final consent form for the procedure that resulted in a viable pregnancy and the birth of the twins.

Discussion. On appeal, the husband makes three arguments as to why he should not be ordered to pay child support on behalf of the twins. First, he argues that he consented to the wife's IVF procedure subject to the terms of the 2001 agreement, and such conditional consent could not meet the consent standard of G.L. c. 46, § 4B. The judge rejected this argument without explanation, simply concluding that “[t]he Husband gave his consent to the impregnation of the Wife,” thus establishing paternity under the statute.⁵ Second, the husband argues that his consent was voidable because it was given under duress. He argues that he consented only because the wife threatened to withdraw her support for his “green card” application. The transcript indicates that the husband did not focus on this legal argument during trial, and the judge did not address duress in her memorandum and order. ⁶ Third, the husband argues that his signature on the final consent form was forged. In addition to these arguments, the husband argues that even if he is liable for child support, the judge miscalculated the wife's income, and therefore, the amount of support should be decreased.

1. Consent under G.L. c. 46, § 4B. We must consider the meaning of the term “consent” within G.L. c. 46, § 4B. The statute provides that “[a]ny child born to a married woman as a result of artificial insemination with the consent of her husband, shall be considered the legitimate child of the mother and such husband.” The husband argues that he gave consent subject to his intent and understanding that he would not be legally responsible for any resulting child, and that such limited consent is not sufficient to establish his parental status under the statute. We have consulted Massachusetts cases as well as those from other jurisdictions, and we hold that consent for purposes of the statute means consent to create a child, rather than consent to become a parent.⁷

In T.F. v. B.L., 442 Mass. 522, 532, 813 N.E.2d 1244 (2004), the court declined to enforce an implied agreement between an unmarried same-sex couple that both individuals would be responsible for and parents of a child conceived through artificial insemination. The court specifically noted the absence of legislation recognizing such an agreement. Ibid. In explanation, the court stated that “[t]he Legislature has identified those persons who are liable as parents to support their children,” and cited, inter alia, G.L. c. 46, § 4B. Ibid. The court summarized c. 46, § 4B, as establishing that “if the spouse of a woman who undergoes artificial insemination consents to the procedure, that spouse is considered the legitimate parent of a resulting child.” Ibid. The court thereby cast the statutory language, which expressly determines the status of the child, in terms of the equivalent proposition determining the status of the parents. While dicta in that case, we note the court's plain statement that, for purposes of the Massachusetts artificial insemination statute, simple consent to the procedure is enough to confer parental status.

Further, the court in T.F. v. B.L. held the couple's parenthood agreement invalid because “[t]he decision to become, or not to become, a parent is a personal right of ‘such delicate and intimate character that direct enforcement ... by any process of the court should never be attempted.’ ” Id. at 529–530, 813 N.E.2d 1244, citing A.Z. v. B.Z., 431 Mass. 150, 162, 725 N.E.2d 1051 (2000). Likewise, in A.Z. v. B.Z., supra, the court stated that “prior agreements to enter into familial relationships (marriage or parenthood) should not be enforced against individuals who subsequently reconsider their decisions.” In that case, the husband had consented to the IVF procedure that resulted in the birth of twins, but he objected four years later when, following the couple's divorce, his former wife sought to implant the remaining frozen preembryos. The court held that his prior agreement could not be used to force procreation upon him against his will.

We read these cases to instruct that Massachusetts courts should not inquire into a person's subjective intent to become a parent when determining parental status. Such inquiry would be inherently problematic due to its “delicate and intimate character” and obvious evidentiary concerns. See T.F. v. B.L., 442 Mass. at 529–530, 813 N.E.2d 1244. In this light, we cannot interpret “consent” as used in G.L. c. 46, § 4B, to require an affirmative intent on behalf of the husband to be a parent. Mindful of the court's dicta in T.F. v. B.L., supra, consent within the statute must therefore mean, simply, consent to create the child.

Cases from other jurisdictions are persuasive. Laura WW. v. Peter WW., 51 A.D.3d 211, 856 N.Y.S.2d 258 (N.Y.2008), provides a succinct statement on the issue. “Indeed, ‘if an unmarried man who biologically causes conception through sexual relations without the premeditated intent of birth is legally obligated to support a child, then the equivalent resulting birth of a child caused by the deliberate conduct of artificial insemination should receive the same treatment in the eyes of the law.’ ” Id. at 215, 856 N.Y.S.2d 258, quoting from Parentage of M.J., 203 Ill.2d 526, 541, 272 Ill.Dec. 329, 787 N.E.2d 144 (2003). This statement equates the volitional act of sexual intercourse with the volitional act of providing a signature to consent to the artificial insemination or embryo implantation. In both cases, the intent of the putative father toward parental status plays no role. His volitional actions resulted in the creation of a child, and the law will attach parental responsibilities as a result.⁸

Lack of consent was also at issue in Alexandria S. v. Pacific Fertility Med. Center, 55 Cal.App.4th 110, 113–114, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 23 (1997). There, in contrast to the facts here, the husband signed a consent form but, through the deception of his wife, believed it to be a simple waiver form for any problems related to the artificial insemination procedure. He had no intent to be the father of the child, and therefore did not adequately consent under California's version of the artificial insemination statute.⁹ Likewise, in Marriage of Witbeck–Wildhagen, 281 Ill.App.3d 502, 506–507, 217 Ill.Dec. 329, 667 N.E.2d 122 (1996), the husband expressly refused to consent to the artificial...