In re Marriage of Witbeck-Wildhagen

Illinois Appellate Court · Family Law

Family LawParentageArtificial InseminationChild SupportIllinois Parentage Actsection 3(a)artificial inseminationwritten consent

Facts

The parties were married and consulted a clinic about artificial insemination, where respondent made clear he did not want to participate in or consent to petitioner's attempt to become pregnant. Petitioner nevertheless underwent seven artificial insemination procedures without informing respondent, later became pregnant, and filed for dissolution while pregnant. After the child was born, blood testing conclusively excluded respondent as the biological father. Petitioner admitted respondent had not given written consent to the insemination but argued he should still be treated as the child's legal father and be required to support the child.

Issue

Does section 3(a) of the Illinois Parentage Act allow a husband to be treated as the legal father of a child conceived by donor insemination, and subjected to support obligations, when he did not give written consent and there is no evidence he otherwise consented to the procedure?

Rule

Section 3(a) requires a husband's written consent as a prerequisite to establishing a legal father-child relationship and imposing a support obligation for a child conceived by artificial insemination with donor semen. The statute's clause stating that a physician's failure to document consent does not affect the legal relationship excuses only failures of certification and recordkeeping, not the absence of the husband's consent itself.

🔒

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 Peoria, Illinois, Dana Mercer secretly underwent donor insemination during her marriage to Owen Mercer after Owen repeatedly told her he did not want children. A later genetic test conclusively excluded Owen as the biological father, and Dana seeks child support in their divorce.

Under the majority's interpretation of section 3(a), is Owen the child's legal father for purposes of support?

Explanation. The majority held that for donor insemination under section 3(a), legal fatherhood depends on insemination under physician supervision and with the husband's consent, which the statute says must be in writing. Where, as here, the husband gave no consent at all and is not the biological father, the court found no statutory or equitable basis to establish fatherhood or impose support. The child's general need for support does not permit imposing parental duties on a nonparent. (Derived from In re Marriage of Witbeck-Wildhagen (n.d.).)