icelander-flag-large-300x216In just a few short weeks, the Supreme Court of Iceland will rule on its first surrogacy case involving two women who wish to be recognized as the legal parents of their child born via gestational surrogacy. A U.S. surrogate carried the same-sex couple’s child, which was created using donor egg and sperm. The baby was born in 2013 and received a US passport and citizenship. The intended mothers established their legal parentage in the U.S., but things became complicated when the mothers tried to return to Iceland with the child. Surrogacy is illegal in Iceland, and when the mothers tried to register their child as an Icelandic citizen and themselves as the child’s legal parents, the National Registry of Iceland rejected the registration attempt. Although the child eventually received Icelandic citizenship and an identity number, the mothers sued the National Registry and the Icelandic State because they were only granted a fostering agreement rather than legal parentage.

This decision will have a great impact in Iceland because it will affect many couples and individuals who wish to have children through gestational surrogacy. This case also shows that in many countries, the laws are a bit lagging on how to address surrogacy. Make sure to stay tuned for a follow up blog post about the Supreme Court of Iceland’s decision.

The attorneys of Harden Jackson Law are devoted to servicing clients throughout the Indianapolis area and the state of Indiana in all areas family law, including divorce, custody, child support, property division, paternity, post-divorce modifications, prenuptial and postnuptial agreements, simple wills, adoption, surrogacy and other areas of assisted reproductive technology law. For more information, please contact us at 317.569.0770 or www.hardenjacksonlaw.com.

OutstandingClinicStudentoftheYear-300x184Our very own, attorney Katherine Schwartz (formerly Voskoboynik), is featured in the latest version of The McKinney Lawyer (the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law alumni magazine) as a co-recipient of the 2015-2016 Outstanding Clinical Student award for her work in the law school’s Health and Human Rights Clinic. Her main project in the Clinic involved crafting a report on access to dialysis treatment for undocumented immigrants in Indiana. You can read more about Katherine and her award on page 22 – 23 of the online magazine, linked here: https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/alumni-donors/alumni-magazines/2017winter.pdf

The attorneys of Harden Jackson Law are devoted to servicing clients throughout the Indianapolis area and the state of Indiana in all areas family law, including divorce, custody, child support, property division, paternity, post-divorce modifications, prenuptial and postnuptial agreements, simple wills, adoption, surrogacy and other areas of assisted reproductive technology law. For more information, please contact us at 317.569.0770 or www.hardenjacksonlaw.com.

Remember, these blog posts are not meant to be legal advice. You should consult an adoption attorney to discuss the specifics of your situation.

ME_23_00_sm-150x150Earlier this year, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld the Rockland District Court’s decision that found a de facto parentage relationship between Jessica Lisio’s two biological children and her transgender domestic partner, Tammy Thorndike. Lisio and Thorndike, who identifies as male, began a relationship and decided to have a child together. In 2009, Lisio and Thorndike registered as domestic partners and later Lisio gave birth to their daughter. Their relationship began to fall apart a few months later, but Thorndike and Lisio maintained their existing parental roles. Thorndike finally moved out and two years later, filed a complaint for a determination of paternity and parental rights and responsibilities, which Lisio opposed, arguing that Thorndike had no parental rights. The Court found that “Thorndike undertook a permanent and responsible parental role in the children’s lives”, and that the children would be negatively affected if Thorndike was removed from their lives.

This case is a prime example of how the laws and court system are delayed and could have been avoided had the two parties taken proactive steps to establish their parental rights and responsibilities. In this case, a second-parent adoption lets the non-biological parent adopt a child without the biological parents losing their rights. Also, if the relationship ends, it still allows the adoptive parent to have custody and visitation rights. It’s important to keep in mind that Indiana has become one of a handful of states that now puts both biological and non-biological married same-sex parents on the birth certificate. Therefore, a second-parent adoption is not always necessary in this scenario. Meet with an experienced adoption and reproductive law attorney to learn more about when a second-parent adoption may be required.

In the many states that don’t recognize second-parent adoption, there is the option of a co-parenting agreement which lays out the intentions of the parents regarding the care of the children. This will help protect the intent of the non-biological parent toward the care of the child in the event that the relationship ends. This decision also strengthens the case for establishment of parentage in non-biological parents that use donor egg, which can sometimes arise in a gestational surrogacy. Many states don’t have clear laws on whether parentage can be established using donor egg, so taking intent into consideration fortifies the argument for establishment of legal parentage in non-biological parents.

missouri-state-flag-150x150In late 2016, The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the decision that pre-embryos were “mutual property of a special character” and could not be used to have a child without the consent of both parties. Jalesia McQueen and, then husband, Justin Gadberry decided to freeze Gadberrys’ sperm just before he was deployed to Iraq. While Gadberry was overseas, the couple discussed In Virto Fertilization and just months later two of the four embryos were implanted in McQueen’s’ uterus. McQueen gave birth to twin boys and froze the other two embryos at a cryobank facility. The couple later divorced and a dispute regarding the disposition of their frozen embryos arose during their divorce proceedings. This dispute quickly turned into a legal case to determine when exactly life begins and the legal status of frozen embryos. The trial court upheld the court of appeals decision that agreed with the ex-husband, Gadberry, ruling that frozen-embryos cannot be used without the consent of both McQueen and Gadberry. The frozen embryo is not considered to have human rights, but is property of the two parties involved.

Judge Robert M. Clayton III wrote the majority opinion, stating that awarding joint custody “subjects neither party to any unwarranted governmental intrusion but leaves the intimate decision of whether to potentially have more children to the parties alone.” The court made it clear in the decision that they were not determining when life begins, but just interpreting the legal status of embryos in Missouri. The Court ruled that embryos have no legal claim to the same protections as a human being under Missouri law, and that forcing the husband to have a child that he doesn’t want to have violates his privacy rights. McQueen, the ex-wife, is planning on appealing the decision. After the ruling was issued, she stated “It’s part of me, and what rights do the judges or the governments have to tell me I cannot have them?”

Tim Schlesinger, Gadberry’s attorney, said, “I think today’s ruling is a victory for individuals against unjustified government intrusion.” Schlesinger hopes that this case will provide guidance to other states that are facing similar issues. This issue will likely arise in numerous states at some point, as Intro Virto Fertilization becomes more popular. Click here to read our blog post about the legal status of frozen embryos to learn more about where several states stand on this question.

capitol-820611_1280-150x150Indiana Representative Robin Shackleford recently introduced House Bill 1059, which would require insurance companies to offer coverage for fertility treatments. This bill was inspired by a local woman‘s public fight to shine light on the fact that infertility affects one in eight women. In virto fertilization is used to help families who struggle with infertility, but with such a high price not all families can afford the service.  Shackleford commented, “I’ve heard a lot of stories where women have literally drained out their 401K. We need to see how we can level the playing field and let it be affordable for everyone.”

One local family, Cher Kimbrough and her partner Samuel traveled out of state to get more affordable fertility treatment. “I found the place in New York and it was $4,000. Right away I thought it was a catch because they are charging $4,000 for the same thing they’re charging 20 grand for in Indy,” Kimbrough commented Even though this family had a happy ending, there are many families that can’t afford this treatment. According to Shackleford, the next step is getting both constituents and insurers together to come to a consensus before the bill is heard by the house insurance committee. Stay tuned to our blog for updates on the developments of this bill.

The attorneys of Harden Jackson Law are devoted to servicing clients in all areas of family law, including divorce, custody, child support, property division, paternity, post-divorce modifications, prenuptial and postnuptial agreements, simple wills, adoption, surrogacy, and other areas of reproductive law. For more information, please contact us at 317.569.0770 or www.hardenjacksonlaw.com.

In late 2016, thekansas-flag-medium-150x150 Shawnee County District court in Kansas issued a significant ruling in November 2016 concerning sperm donors’ responsibility for child support. William Marotta of Topeka, Kansas answered an ad on Craigslist to donate sperm to a same-sex couple, who used the sperm to have a child. The couple later separated and then reached out to the state Department for Children and Families for help when one of the mothers lost her job. The department then filed a suit claiming that Marotta wasn’t paying child support and sought to hold him liable for $6,100 in child support expenses since the child’s birth in December 2009.

Shawnee County District Judge Mary Mattivi ruled that Marotta does not have to provide child support. The department argued that Marotta needed to pay the child support because the two women did not use a physician and Kansas law states that one must be inseminated by a doctor.  Marotta’s attorneys, Tim Schlesinger and Charles Baylor, further argued that the laws are antiquated and have not been updated. Baylor contended, “If the presumptive parent, in this case the non-biological mother, had been a man, they never would have gone after the sperm donor.” Marotta’s attorneys countered that he never had the intentions of being the child’s father nor has he tried to make contact with the couple. The state Department for Children and Families is thinking of appealing the court’s decision.

A key element of Mattivi’s holding is the reasoning that the woman who didn’t give birth to the child is considered the child’s second parent, and the sperm donor is therefore not financially responsible. This ruling is especially meaningful for married same-sex couples, as courts continue to follow the growing trend of extending legal parentage to the non-biological parent. This case also provides guidance on issues surrounding sperm and egg donation, as laws in this area are often lacking or have not yet caught up with the rapid growth of reproductive technology. Stay tuned to the blog for updates on this decision as well as other similar decisions, as the position that non-biological parents in married same-sex couples are considered the child’s legal parents gains traction in courts throughout the United States.

29514799292_07726da703_qFertilityIQ recently released its 2016 list of top businesses to work for as a fertility patient. Criteria to make it on the list include categories such as lifetime treatment maximum, pre-authorization, exclusions, and clinic restrictions. IVF costs are now around $23,050, and only 80% of patients either have all or none of their treatment paid for by their employer. Those patients that had their treatment covered by their employers said they felt a greater sense of loyalty to their employer and stayed in their jobs longer.

Many companies exclude certain add-on treatments that are becoming necessary in the field of fertility treatment. The cost of many of these add-on treatments ranges from $3,000 to $7,000 out of pocket. Companies that do offer fertility benefits sometimes do not promote them, because may be nervous about the potential wide adoption of these benefits.

The list of top 10 companies with fertility benefits are:

5662029278_ea66e0d9bf_qIn 2015, eight female same-sex couples filed a federal lawsuit claiming that Indiana violated their constitutional rights regarding the information on their children’s birth certificates. Until recently, Indiana did not include the non-birth mother or father’s name on the birth certificates of children born into same-sex marriages, and classified these births as “out of wedlock”.  In the 2016 decision, Judge Tanya Walter Pratt of the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana determined that Indiana law regulating birth certificate documentation violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The judge also ruled that the state cannot classify children born to a birth mother who is married to a same-sex spouse as born out of wedlock.

Weeks after the judgment, the state of Indiana sought to amend the order, raising questions of jurisdiction and asking whether the judgment applies to all wives of all birth mothers, or only to wives of birth mothers who conceived through artificial insemination. The judge refused to amend the decision and said, “The order means what it says and says what it means and the law intends to give wives of birth mothers comparable rights to husbands of birth mothers.” With the Supreme Court declaring same-sex marriage legal in the U.S. just over a year ago, this is another great leap in giving same-sex couples equal rights in parenting. Indiana must now name both same sex-parents on their child’s birth certificate if the parents are married, not just the birth mother.

The attorneys of Harden Jackson Law are devoted to servicing clients in all areas of family law, including divorce, custody, child support, property division, paternity, post-divorce modifications, prenuptial and postnuptial agreements, simple wills, adoption, surrogacy, and other areas of reproductive law. For more information, please contact us at 317.569.0770 or www.hardenjacksonlaw.com.

Spain
Last month, the Supreme Court of Spain issued a landmark ruling that recognizes the right to paid maternity leave for parents of children born through surrogacy. Although gestational surrogacy is illegal in Spain, the Court held that the need to take care of children outweighs any legal barriers set forth by Spain’s surrogacy ban. The decision also extends various rights to mothers of children born through surrogacy, such as a reduced workday for nursing mothers and the right to take one year of unpaid leave after the maternity leave. Spaniards who seek to build their family through surrogacy must go abroad, and two such scenarios, one involving a surrogacy arrangement in the United States and the other in India, set this case in motion.  In October, Spain’s congress also voted to equalize paternity and maternity leave, awarding fathers the same sixteen weeks of paid maternity leave that mothers receive.

The decision comes at a time when the issue of maternity benefits is in the spotlight in the United States.  A New Jersey woman is suing her former employer, Verizon Network Solutions, for denying her paid maternity leave when she had children through surrogacy in 2013. Various arguments exist for both sides of the issue. For example, some posit that since mothers of children born to a gestational surrogate did not give birth, they do not need time to recover physically. This argument is often used to justify the denial of extended paternity leave for fathers. On the other hand, proponents of maternity benefits for mothers of children born through surrogacy contend that a new mom needs time to bond with the baby, especially when she did not carry the child.

Although the Verizon lawsuit is one of the first of its kind (there was a federal lawsuit to claim benefits for paid leave by a woman who had children through surrogacy in 2011, but the case was ultimately dismissed), this issue is likely to become more prevalent as gestational surrogacy continues to grow as a family-building option. Stay tuned to our blog for more discussions on emerging reproductive law issues.

KVPhotoHarden Jackson is pleased to announce that Katherine M. Schwartz has joined the firm’s Adoption and Assisted Reproductive Technology Practice Group.

Katherine earned her Juris Doctor degree magna cum laude from the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in 2016, graduating in the top 7% of her class. She also received a certificate in International and Comparative Law. Katherine received her undergraduate degree cum laude from DePauw University in 2013, where she majored in Communications and Romance Languages.

In law school, Katherine served as the Executive Managing Editor of Vol. 26 of the Indiana International and Comparative Law Review, a certified legal intern in IU McKinney’s Health and Human Rights Clinic, a Dean’s Tutorial Society Constitutional Law Fellow, and a member of the Robert H. Staton Intramural Moot Court Competition Board. She participated in the 2014 Staton Moot Court Competition, where she was named to the Order of the Barristers (the top quarter of competitors). Katherine was also recognized as the 2015-2016 Outstanding Legal Clinic Student of the Year.