Opinion ID: 1057783
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: legislative history and policy

Text: Before we analyze the issues in this case, it is helpful to review the legislative history and policy behind the two primary statutes.
Code § 20-49.1 et seq. is the statutory scheme designed to establish the legal parentage of children born to unmarried parents. At common law, there was no recognized duty on the part of an unmarried father to support his biological child. See Brown v. Brown, 183 Va. 353, 355, 32 S.E.2d 79, 80 (1944). The first statutory modification of the common-law rule occurred in 1952, when the General Assembly allowed proof of paternity to establish such a duty, but only by the father’s admission of paternity under oath before a court. 1952 Acts ch. 584 (formerly codified as Code § 20-61.1). In 1954, this statute was liberalized to allow proof of paternity through the use of a father’s out-of-court admission of paternity in writing under oath. 1954 Acts ch. 577. In 1988, Code § 20-61.1 was repealed, and the General Assembly amended and recodified the 6 subject matter in Chapter 3.1, Title 20, Code § 20-49.1 et seq. 1988 Acts ch. 866. Chapter 3.1 is entitled “Proceedings to Determine Parentage.” The provision most pertinent to this case, Code § 20-49.1, is specifically labeled “[h]ow parent and child relationship established.” Since its enactment in 1988, Code § 20-49.1 has provided for the establishment of paternity by a voluntary written agreement of the biological father and mother, made under oath, acknowledging paternity. In 1992, it was expanded to permit the establishment of paternity through the use of scientifically reliable genetic testing. 1992 Acts ch. 516. There is no limitation in Chapter 3.1 barring parents who conceive through assisted conception from voluntarily establishing paternity by such a written agreement. Consequently, Code § 20-49.1 et seq., read without referencing other statutes, would control the determination of paternity in all cases concerning children of unwed biological parents who enter into such voluntary written agreements.
Code § 20-156 et seq. (the “assisted conception statute”) is intended to establish legal parentage of children born as a result of assisted conception. Unlike Code § 20-49.1 et seq., it was enacted specifically to protect the interests of married parents. 7 The assisted conception statute was enacted in response to Welborn v. Doe, 10 Va. App. 631, 394 S.E.2d 732 (1990), a case involving a married couple and a third-party sperm donor. In Welborn, the Court of Appeals held that the only sure way for the husband of a gestational mother to secure parental rights, thereby divesting any rights of a third-party donor, was for the husband to adopt the child. Id. at 633, 394 S.E.2d at 733. The court noted the General Assembly’s failure to enact legislation terminating the rights of such sperm donors, stating: “[u]ntil such time as the Code is amended to terminate possible parental rights of a sperm donor, only through adoption may the rights of the sperm donor be divested and only through adoption may the rights of Mr. Welborn and the twins born to his wife be as secure as their rights would be in a natural father-child relationship.” Id. at 635, 394 S.E.2d at 734. In 1991, at the next legislative session following Welborn, the General Assembly enacted the assisted conception statute, stating: “[t]he husband of the gestational mother of a child is the child’s father” and “[a] donor is not the parent of a child conceived through assisted conception.” 1991 Acts ch. 600 (enacting Code § 20-158(A)(2)-(3)). The statute clearly was enacted to ensure that infertile married couples such as the Welborns, referred to as “intended parents” under 8 the statute, were not threatened by parentage claims from third-party donors. The policy goal was to ensure that a married couple could obtain sperm from an outside donor without fear that the donor would claim parental rights. Code § 20-158(A)(3) was amended in 1997 to embody its current language: “[a] donor is not the parent of a child conceived through assisted conception, unless the donor is the husband of the gestational mother.” (Emphasis added.) The amendment addressed situations in which the “donor” is also the husband of the gestational mother and therefore is permitted to establish parentage. In such cases, there is no possibility of interference from outside, third-party donors.