June 18 has brought us a new chapter in the world of “intent based parenting.” That’s not a phrase that jumps lightly off the tongue, but it comes to us from Glover v. Junior, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case which holds that people can contract to be parents either expressly or impliedly. 333 A.3d 323 (Pa. 2025).
Today’s case is C.M.D. v. H.M. 2026 Pa. Super. 126. It’s a classic story of a same sex couple who go through an off and on relationship where one or both decide that its time to have kids. While relationship is “on” a child comes in July, 2022, yet by December the “parents” are occupying separate bedrooms. In 2024 birth mom left the homestead, took the child and left no address. The non-biological parent then sued for custody and the Glover games began.
Under Glover, courts are tasked with gathering and then assessing whether a parenting agreement existed. In this case, the trial and appellate courts walk us through nearly every detail of the adult relationship dating back to 2018. We know who contributed breast milk and what was written about parentage on the IVF contracts. We have a six year history of everything that could reflect on parenting intent. It’s complicated because eggs can be stored for years, where the natural baby production line runs but nine months.
As we read the 31 page appellate summary of the trial court case, a question occurred.
Why do courts have to endure these lengthy and expensive fact-based marathons when parties can (and should) register their intent (a) when an IVF account is established and, again (b) when baby arrives fully assembled, “delivered” and ready for a birth certificate? In this case we are told that our now unhappy couple didn’t think they could put both parents on a birth certificate if they had not married. Opinion p.4.
I saw no issue on the horizon a year ago when Glover was decided. The facts seemed pretty simple when compared with today’s history in C.M.D. v. H. M. But recent custody cases often bring more characters than MacBeth. Grandparents, boyfriends, girlfriends. In some of these cases, the actual parents have left the stage. Another, largely unfinished question is whether once handed a “role,” is there a corresponding support obligation? Even on the custody side we recently noted the absence of a bright line test, but it seemed clear that where an adult is resident with a child for a lengthy period of time and is called upon or steps forward to provide support typically associated with the role of parent, in loco parentis standing under 23 Pa.C.S.5324 is likely to attach. Our 2/8/26 post.
If we really do wish to keep the focus on the interests of children, is it unfair to ask people who think they want to be parents to record that intention by joining in the contracts for fertilization and/or to demand registration on a birth certificate? If C.M.D. was denied status as a parent at the hospital or in the records of birth, the clear direction should be to initiate custody proceedings then and not months or years later. In this case, the record reflects that C.M.D. was part of the delivery. And yes, there will be birth moms who sign IVF contracts in secret and there are moms who will arrange to give birth away from the once future other parent. But issues of parenthood should be resolved early. This precedential case signals that a child can go four years without clarity as to who his or her parents are.
The precedential opinion: J-A08034-26o – 106824018363192221.pdf