Case Title: In The Matter of The Declaration of Parentage

Citation: 

Docket Number: 43796

State: idaho

Court: Idaho Supreme Court (civil)

Date: 2016-06-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO 
Docket No. 43796 
 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
DECLARATION OF PARENTAGE AND 
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS 
OF:  JANE DOE II,  
A Minor Child (2015-25). 
-------------------------------------------------------- 
JANE DOE, Married Gestational Carrier,  
and JOHN DOE, Husband of Gestational 
Carrier, 
  
           Petitioners-Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
JOHN DOE I, Married Intended Father, 
and JANE DOE I, Married Intended 
Mother, 
  
           Respondents. 
_____________________________________ 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
)
)
)
) 
 
 
    
Boise, April 2016 Term 
 
2016 Opinion No. 64 
 
Filed: June 2, 2016 
 
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk 
 
 
 
 
 
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State  
of Idaho, Ada County.  Hon. Darla S. Williamson, Senior District Judge. 
 
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 
 
Jones, Gledhill, Fuhrman, Gourley, PA, Boise, attorneys for appellant. 
Steven Meade argued.  
 
Cockerille Law Office, Idaho City, attorneys for respondent. Monica 
Cockerille argued. 
_____________________________ 
W. JONES, Justice 
I. NATURE OF THE CASE 
Respondents, Jane Doe I (“Intended Mother”) and John Doe I (“Intended Father” and 
collectively with Intended Mother, “Intended Parents”) are a married couple living in Alaska. In 
May, 2014, Intended Parents contracted with Jane Doe (“Gestational Carrier”), a gestational 
surrogate living in Idaho, to carry an embryo made from Intended Father’s sperm and a donor 
egg. After the baby was born, Gestational Carrier and her husband, John Doe (“Husband”), 
1 
 
moved for a declaratory judgment that Intended Parents are the parents of the resulting child 
(“Child”).1 The district court refused. It reasoned that declaratory judgment was not available to 
determine the parentage of Child because Idaho law already provides a statutory means by which 
parties can become parents when using a gestational surrogate—the termination of that 
gestational surrogate’s parental rights and the adoption of the child. The district court also found 
that the surrogacy agreement entered into between the parties was void as against public policy 
to the extent that it sought to contractually assign parentage. 
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
Intended Parents are a married couple living in Alaska. In May, 2014, Intended Parents 
entered into a contract (the “Surrogacy Contract”) with Gestational Carrier and Husband, a 
couple living in Idaho. The Surrogacy Contract provided that a donor egg possessed by Intended 
Parents, which had been fertilized with Intended Father’s sperm, would be implanted in 
Gestational Carrier, who would carry the resulting fetus to term. Once Child was born, 
Gestational Carrier and Husband would take whatever steps were necessary under Idaho law to 
ensure that: (1) Intended Parents be named the legal parents of Child; (2) Intended Parents be 
listed as parents on Child’s birth certificate; and (3) Intended Parents obtain immediate sole legal 
and physical custody of Child. 
On July 17, 2015, Gestational Carrier gave birth to Child at St. Alphonsus Hospital in 
Boise, Idaho. Immediately after Child’s birth, Child was placed in the care and custody of 
Intended Parents, where she has remained throughout this case. 
On July 18, 2015, Intended Father, Gestational Carrier and Husband, each signed an 
affidavit stating that Intended Father, and not Husband, is the biological father of child and 
should be listed on the birth certificate.  
On August 25, 2015, Gestational Carrier and Husband filed an amended petition for 
declaration of parentage (the “Amended Petition”) with the district court. By the Amended 
Petition, Gestational Carrier and Husband moved for a declaratory judgment that Intended 
Parents are the biological, legal, and lawful parents of Child, and that Gestational Carrier and 
Husband are not the legal parents of Child. 
On November 9, 2015, the district court issued its decision on the Amended Petition. The 
district court held, inter alia, that: (1) it is not appropriate for the district court to issue 
                                                 
1 Intended Parents supported this motion and, though listed as Respondents, are fully in support of this appeal. 
2 
 
declaratory judgments under Idaho Code section 10-1201 where statutory procedures already 
address the circumstances at issue—specifically, a gestational surrogate can terminate her 
parental rights through a termination proceeding under Idaho Code, Title 16, Chapter 20, and an 
intended mother can adopt a child under Idaho Code, Title 16, Chapter 15; (2) the fact that a six 
month residency requirement prevents out of state couples from adopting in Idaho is immaterial, 
because Intended Mother could presumably adopt Child under Alaska law; and (3) “the terms of 
the contract sought to be enforced are against public policy, to the extent they are said to 
establish the parental rights and responsibilities concerning the child . . . [s]uch contract terms 
would be in contravention to the Idaho adoption and termination of parental rights statutory 
schemes.”  
On January 14, 2016, the district court entered a judgment denying the request for 
declaratory relief.  
Gestational Carrier and Husband now appeal. 
III. ISSUES ON APPEAL 
1. 
Did the district court err in refusing to grant declaratory judgment under Idaho Code 
section 10-1201? 
2. 
Did the district court err in finding that the terms of the Surrogacy Contract were against 
public policy? 
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW 
When this Court reviews a trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law 
after a bench trial, the review is “limited to ascertaining whether the evidence 
supports the findings of fact, and whether the findings of fact support the 
conclusions of law.” Borah v. McCandless, 147 Idaho 73, 77, 205 P.3d 1209, 
1213 (2009) (citing Benninger v. Derifield, 142 Idaho 486, 488–89, 129 P.3d 
1235, 1237–38 (2006)). Because “it is the province of the trial court to weigh 
conflicting evidence and testimony and to judge the credibility of the witnesses,” 
this Court liberally construes the trial court’s findings of fact in favor of the 
judgment. Id. (citing Rowley v. Fuhrman, 133 Idaho 105, 107, 982 P.2d 940, 942 
(1999)). . . . “This Court exercises free review over matters of law.” Id. (citing 
Bolger v. Lance, 137 Idaho 792, 794, 53 P.3d 1211, 1213 (2002)). 
Bettwieser v. New York Irrigation Dist., 154 Idaho 317, 322, 297 P.3d 1134, 1139 (2013). 
V. ANALYSIS 
A. 
The district court did not err in refusing to grant a declaratory judgment, because 
there is no legal basis on which it could have done so. 
3 
 
Idaho Code section 10–1201 empowers Idaho courts to “declare rights, status, and other 
legal relations, whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.” I.C. § 10–1201. 
The parties in this case assert that: because (1) Idaho Code section 10–1201, et. seq. 
allows Idaho courts to make judicial declarations of the “legal relations” of parties; and (2) the 
parent-child relationship is a legal relationship under Idaho law; that (3) Idaho courts have the 
power to establish parent-child relationships by entering declaratory judgments.  
We disagree. Although the parties are correct that as a procedural matter Idaho Code 
section 10–1201, et. seq. does allow courts to declare legal relations, that power is inherently 
limited to the interpretation of previously established substantive law. Idaho Code section 10–
1201, et. seq. does not give this Court, or any other Idaho court, the power to create law. “The 
legislature and the legislature only, under our constitution, has  power to legislate.” Thomas v. 
Riggs, 67 Idaho 223, 228, 175 P.2d 404, 407 (1946). Where the legislature has not seen fit to 
provide substantive legal grounds on which a court can base a requested declaration, then it is 
outside of the authority of that court to make said declaration, even when it would further the 
interests of all parties involved (as here). 
Here, there is no previously established legal basis on which this Court can declare the 
parental rights of Intended Parents. The legislature has provided only the currently existing 
termination and adoption regimes, which give no special consideration to intended parents who 
have obtained the services of a surrogate. Unless and until the legislature chooses to enact 
legislation specifically addressing surrogacy, Intended Parents must proceed within the legal 
avenues available to them to establish legal parenthood. The fact that Idaho law does not allow 
non-residents to utilize its adoption statutes is of no import here. Intended Mother is viewed 
under Idaho law exactly as any other mother wishing to adopt in Idaho.  
B. 
We need not address whether surrogacy agreements are against public policy. 
Because we have already held that the district court did not err in refusing to grant 
declaratory relief there is no need at this time for us to address whether the underlying surrogacy 
contract was in violation of public policy. 
VI. CONCLUSION 
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 
Chief Justice J. JONES and Justices EISMANN, BURDICK and HORTON CONCUR.