.webp)
As we have pointed out before, one of the core guiding principles of Maryland family law holds that parents must be financially responsible for their children. This principle informs various specific areas of family law, such as Maryland’s codes pertaining to children derived from certain fertility procedures. One such procedure is “in vitro fertilization (IVF).”
A case from 2016, Sieglein v. Schmidt, involved a child derived from IVF who bore no genetic connection to either the father or the mother. Maryland law continues to evolve and change as novel circumstances emerge and courts are compelled to determine the applicability of the state’s present legal framework. We can safely project that we will see plenty of other cases which present instances of “first impression,” though we may not always be able to project all the legally relevant details. It’s also safe to project that Maryland courts will see additional cases related specifically to IVF-derived children. Let’s go over the particular facts and ruling of this case.
Factual Posture of the Case
The husband and wife in this case had fertility related issues, and ultimately an IVF procedure involving a donated egg and donated sperm was identified as the best option for parenthood. The marriage began to fall apart after the birth of the child, and the wife moved for dissolution. At the trial court level, the father was found to be the legal parent of the child and liable for child support. The father then petitioned the court to remove the child support order, arguing that the current statutory construction of “parent” (under the Estates and Trusts Article, Md. Code Section 1-206(b)) didn’t encompass the present scenario; because the child had no genetic link to either parent, and presumably the father in particular, the father contended that these facts rendered him outside the law’s definition. The father appealed, but the appellate division affirmed on this issue. The father then brought the case to the Maryland Supreme Court for further review.
Ruling & Post-Ruling Discussion
The father was unsuccessful at the supreme court level, as the court held that the appellate division’s decision was correct. In addition to holding that the father was indeed the parent under Maryland’s statutory language, and therefore liable for child support, the court also upheld the finding that he had “voluntarily impoverished” himself according to applicable Maryland law as well. In other words, the court was unwilling to accept that the father’s present financial circumstances warranted a cessation or reduction to his child support obligations.
The court’s reasoning was predicated on the ordinary use of the term “artificial insemination” as it appears under the relevant statute. Even though the IVF procedure resulted in the lack of genetic connection, the father was still the legal parent because the meaning of artificial insemination was considered broad enough to include this scenario. The child was still delivered with the clear intention of the parties achieving their goal of parenthood; the parties appeared as the legal parents according to the child’s birth certificate; and, the omission of any genetic connection requirements persuaded the court to hold that the present case was clearly within the statute’s meaning.
In this situation, we can see the logic of the father’s strategy relatively easily: most IVF procedures result in children who have genetic ties to the parties, and so the father’s argument about the limits of the current statute was sensible. This is where the benefits of a qualified family law attorney become evident: possibly, with additional research, the father would’ve gauged the probability of the success of his strategy under the given facts. There is the chance that the father could’ve avoided certain resource expenditures throughout the court of the litigation. In any event, having a qualified attorney to assist with all these processes is clearly a valuable proposition.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Information
Readers who want to know more about Maryland’s current artificial insemination law, the contours of “voluntary impoverishment” under current law, disputes regarding child support generally, or any other pertinent family law matter, contact the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-616-4489.
