In re Parentage of M.J.
Supreme Court of Illinois
787 N.E.2d 144 (2003)
Alexis Mitchell (plaintiff), individually and on behalf of her twin sons M. J. and N. J., filed a petition against Raymond Banary (defendant) to establish paternity of the twins and request child support. Mitchell and Banary were in a relationship for nearly 10 years. Because Banary was unable to conceive, Mitchell was artificially inseminated with the sperm from an anonymous donor selected by Mitchell and Banary. Banary’s written consent to the artificial insemination was not obtained. However, Banary provided financial assistance for the procedure, took Mitchell to physician appointments, injected Mitchell with medications designed to enhance her fertility, and participated in naming the twins. After the birth of the twins, Banary also provided financial assistance for the care and maintenance of the twins. Subsequently, Mitchell learned that Banary had a different legal name and was already married. Once Mitchell ended the relationship, Banary ceased all provision of financial support to the twins. In her three-count petition to establish paternity, Mitchell asserted that she was eligible to recover based upon: (1) the common-law theory of breach of an oral agreement, (2) the common-law theory of promissory estoppel, and (3) the Illinois Parentage Act (the Act). Banary moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the three alternative counts failed to state a legally recognized basis for the establishment of paternity and imposition of child support. The trial court agreed and dismissed the matter. Mitchell appealed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Mitchell’s common-law theories were not applicable. The Supreme Court of Illinois granted Mitchell’s petition for leave to appeal.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Kilbride, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 724,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 724,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 briefs, keyed to 983 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.