Christopher Y.Y. v. Jessica Z.Z.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department · 2018 · Family Law

Family LawPaternityParentageArtificial InseminationEquitable EstoppelPresumption of LegitimacyFamily Ct Act § 532Domestic Relations Law § 24

Facts

The mother and her wife were married before the child was born, and the child was conceived through informal home artificial insemination using sperm knowingly donated by petitioner so respondents could have a child together. Before insemination, the parties entered a written agreement under which petitioner waived paternity, custody, and visitation claims, and respondents waived child support claims against him. After the child was born, respondents raised her as a family unit; the wife was present at birth, the child bore the wife's surname, and petitioner had no prenatal involvement, provided no support, and did not see the child for one or two months. More than seven months after birth, petitioner filed a paternity petition and later sought custody.

Issue

Whether a sperm donor who knowingly participated in informal artificial insemination for a married same-sex couple may obtain genetic testing and pursue paternity of the child. More specifically, whether the marital presumption of legitimacy and the doctrine of equitable estoppel barred the paternity petition because testing was not in the child's best interests.

Rule

When paternity is disputed, Family Court generally must order genetic testing under Family Ct Act § 532(a) unless it makes a written best-interests finding based on res judicata, equitable estoppel, or the presumption of legitimacy. A child born to a married same-sex couple is entitled to the presumption of legitimacy, and that presumption is not defeated solely by the biological fact that same-sex spouses cannot both be genetic parents. Equitable estoppel may bar a person from asserting paternity where that person led others reasonably to believe parental rights would not be asserted, acquiesced in the creation of an operative parent-child relationship with another parent, and the child's best interests would be harmed by allowing the claim to proceed.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Albany, Talia Romero and Erin Moss were legally married when Talia gave birth to a child conceived through home insemination using sperm from a known donor, Caleb Voss. Caleb later filed a paternity petition and argued that genetic testing must be ordered because Erin could not be a biological parent.

How should the court rule on Caleb's request for genetic testing?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, a child born to a married same-sex couple is entitled to the presumption of legitimacy/parentage. That presumption is not defeated solely by the biological fact that same-sex spouses cannot both be genetic parents. Family Ct Act § 532(a) still requires a written best-interests basis to refuse testing, but the court may deny testing on that basis where the presumption and the child's interests support doing so. (Derived from Christopher Y.Y. v. Jessica Z.Z. (n.d.).)