D.M.T. v. T.M.H.

DMT (defendant) and TMH (plaintiff) were two women in a long-term, committed relationship. In 2004, the couple had a baby through in vitro fertilization using ova from TMH that were fertilized and implanted into DMT. Both women contributed financially and went to counseling to prepare for parenthood. The birth certificate only listed DMT as the mother, but it was 99.9 percent certain that TMH was the biological mother. In 2006, DMT and TMH separated, and the child lived with DMT, although TMH made regular child-support payments and spent regular time with the child. The relationship between the mothers deteriorated, and DMT cut TMH off from their child. TMH served DMT with a petition to establish parental rights and for declaratory relief, including an adjudication of parentage and a declaration of statutory invalidity with respect to § 742.14 of the Florida Statutes, the state’s assisted-reproductive-technology statute. Section 742.14 provided that a donor of any egg, sperm, or pre-embryo other than a commissioning couple or adoptive father relinquished parental rights and obligations. A commissioning couple was defined as the intended mother and father. DMT filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that TMH lacked parental rights as a matter of law, which the trial court granted. TMH appealed, and the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal held that TMH was not a donor because TMH always intended to parent the child and therefore that the trial court’s application of § 742.14 to TMH was unconstitutional. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed the case.