March 21, 2025

By: Kerri Lee Cappella

On March 20, 2025, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized “Intent-Based Parentage” as a pathway to legal parenthood in the Commonwealth. In the landmark decision of Glover v. Junior, the court recognized previously unavailable rights of parentage for non-biological parties in cases in which a child was conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART).

In Glover, a married same-sex couple agreed to conceive a child through in vitro fertilization (IVF) using Glover’s eggs and a jointly-selected sperm donor. The parties entered into a contract with a sperm bank listing Glover as the “intended parent” and Junior as the “co-intended parent.”

Prior to and during the course of Glover’s pregnancy, Junior attended Glover’s medical appointments and injected Glover with hormones necessary to sustain her pregnancy. The parties entered into an IVF contract naming Glover as the “Patient” and Junior as the “Partner.”

The parties engaged counsel to seek Junior’s adoption of the child after its birth, each signing supportive affidavits.

Glover’s affidavit stated, among other things: “I am seeking to have my spouse, [Junior,] adopt this child in order to provide this child with the legal stability of two parents…. I understand that means [Junior] will become a legal parent, with rights equal to my rights as a biological parent…. I understand that this means [Junior] will have custody rights and child support obligations to this child if we ever separate in the future….”

Prior to the child’s birth, the parties separated, thus beginning the three-year dispute over whether Junior would be confirmed as the child’s parent.

In analyzing an ever-evolving body of law, the Court determined that these parties, this child, and those like them fell outside the four existing bases to confer parentage within the Commonwealth, stating, “It is time our precedent evolves to fill in the gap.”  The Court explained,

“[N]one of the four paths to parentage [currently] recognized … account for the factual scenario in this case. Junior does not share genetics with and did not gestate Child, so there is no biological relationship. Junior’s relationship with Glover broke down and this litigation commenced before Child was born, so there was no opportunity to adopt. Likewise, the presumption of parentage attendant to marriage applies only to intact marriages, so Junior could not establish parentage through the marital presumption. And application of parentage by estoppel is problematic in this case since our precedent requires a best interests analysis, and Junior has been prevented from forming a relationship with Child. Finally, contract principles are inapt because married couples generally do not engage in a transaction involving offer, acceptance, and consideration when deciding to have children. Nonetheless, we are presented with a situation where a formerly married couple endeavored — while still married — to conceive and raise a child together, and they invested many months and significant financial, emotional, and physical resources to jointly bring a child into the world.”

The Court further held in adopting intent-based parentage,

“The decision made within a loving couple to have a baby is generally not a quid pro quo, and we decline to put courts in the position of parsing through couples’ actions to determine whether they were done gratuitously or as an exchange for consideration. We prefer to recognize a more dignified means to establish parentage for couples who use ART to conceive.”

Finally, a bi-partisan coalition of Pennsylvania legislators seeks to reintroduce the Pennsylvania Uniform Parentage Act which passed in the House in 2024. In its March 17, 2025 Memorandum seeking sponsorship of the legislation, the House Members stated, “All children need – and deserve – the emotional and financial support parents provide. Clear guidance on how to establish legal child-parent relationships is critical for family stability and judicial consistency, but such guidance is sadly missing in our current statutory law.”

The enactment of the Uniform Parentage Act would ultimately codify the definition of parentage in the Commonwealth.