Gatsby v. Gatsby
Idaho Supreme Court
495 P.3d 996 (2021)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Linsay Gatsby (plaintiff) and Kylee Gatsby (defendant), a married couple, decided to have a child together via artificial insemination using sperm donated by a mutual friend. Linsay and Kylee drafted and signed an artificial-insemination agreement stating that the donor relinquished all parental rights and that the recipient of the donated sperm intended to exert full parental rights over the resultant child. Linsay artificially inseminated Kylee; a physician was never involved. Both Linsay and Kylee were listed on the birth certificate. The child lived with both Linsay and Kylee, but Kylee was the primary caregiver. Linsay never adopted the child. Approximately one year later, Linsay filed for divorce following a domestic-violence incident. Linsay was initially granted sole custody of the child, but that was subsequently changed to joint custody. After one year of joint custody, the magistrate court granted Kylee sole custody, holding that (1) Linsay could not be classified as the child’s legal parent under either the common-law presumption of parentage for married couples or under Idaho’s Artificial Insemination Act (AIA) and (2) assigning sole custody to Kylee was in the child’s best interest because Kylee had a healthier relationship with the child. Linsay appealed, arguing that she had complied with all relevant portions of the AIA. The district court affirmed. Linsay then appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moeller, J.)
Dissent (Stegner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.