Court Opinion

ID: 9753527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:17:14.195925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:57.331412
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
CATHELL, J.
I dissent.
This case illustrates that the process of manufacturing children can lead to unusual situations that would have been virtually inconceivable decades ago when the relevant statutory scheme was enacted. I do not necessarily agree or disagree that the remedy for the present situation created by the majority is appropriate or otherwise. I think it is wrong for the majority to fashion, in the first instance, the public policy it is creating as a remedy. The issues present in this case, going as they do to the very heart of a society, are, in my view, a matter for the Legislative Branch of government and not initially for the courts.
It is important to note what this case is not. It is not about a woman, married or otherwise, wanting to be a mother, who has difficulty in conceiving through sexual intercourse or who does not want to conceive through sexual intercourse or direct artificial insemination, and thus wants to have her egg fertilized outside her body and then implanted back into her womb where she will, hopefully, be able to give natural birth to a child she will raise as the mother. This case has nothing to do *296■with attempts to cope with female fertility problems of any kind. In this case (so far as the record reflects), there is no woman, genetic mother, birth mother, or otherwise, who wants to mother the resulting child or who wants her name on the birth certificate.
This is simply the case, apparently, of a man who wants to be a father and, recognizing that he could not do it by himself, went out and arranged for (perhaps hired) two different women and an assembler to help him manufacture a child-one woman to donate (or sell) the egg (a genetic mother), a technician (apparently paid) to fertilize the egg in a dish,1 and another woman (the birth mother) to carry the fetus through the gestation period and then to eject the child in what would normally be considered the birthing process. At the end of this manufacturing process, the result is a child who, according to the majority, is to have no mother at birth.
The hospital, having some familiarity with normal birthing processes, understandably perceives what happens to be a birth and places the name of the woman from whence the child has come (at least the child emerged from the birth canal of the woman), on the birth certificate as required by State law. Everybody, (except the child and the hospital) then claims foul because the law requires the naming of a mother on a birth certificate. Then the majority of this Court joins the clamor and decrees that the child has no mother at birth — a concept thought impossible for tens of thousands of years.
One supposes that under the aegis of what is occurring in this case, that if a source of sperm does not intend to be a father, he could assert that he was not the father,2 and under *297the theories of the majority, a child could come into the world with neither a mother nor a father at birth.3
As noted, the appellant and the majority, assert that there is inequality in the treatment of the respective genders, in that a man is permitted by statute to deny paternity — to deny that he is the father of the child because there is a procedure in which that denial can be litigated. He4 argues that there is no similar method by which a woman can deny maternity. However, that is not the issue in the present case. The relevant woman is not denying that she produced the egg that was fertilized. Neither appellant nor the woman that carried the child through the gestation period deny that she bore and delivered the child and that it came out of her birth canal. If appellant or either of the women were asserting the same *298issue that exists in paternity litigation, the majority might have a point. What the majority fails to realize in its opinion, is that what a man is doing when he challenges paternity is that he denies his particular involvement in fertilizing an egg and thus he asserts he is not the particular or correct father of the child — a man is not asserting that the child has no father at all.
In the present case, what the majority does, is to establish as a matter of public policy that it is possible for there to be a denial of all maternity, i.e., that there is no mother at all at birth, not that a particular woman is not the mother. The majority, in essence, holds that if you do not intend to be the mother, you should not be responsible as a mother. There are probably tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of fathers (and certainly mothers as well) who did not intend to be parents at the time of the actions that led to conception, who have been judicially determined to be responsible for the support of the child they did not intend to conceive. With the majority’s decision today, if a genetic and/or birth mother does not intend to act as a mother during this manufacturing process— they have no responsibility as a mother. Presumably, now both fathers and mothers (participating in invitro fertilization or sexual intercourse), if they enter into contracts or other writings or agreements, providing that neither intends to be a parent, or just engage in acts without any agreement, in which a child is conceived, the mother and the father (because he must be treated equally as well) can claim that no one should be responsible for the rearing and support of the children). Presumably, under such circumstances the only responsibility for the rearing of children would be the State’s.
If ever there was a strained interpretation of a statute, the majority’s attempt to construe Maryland Code (1982, 2005), § 4-211(a)(2)(ii), which allows the issuance of new birth certificates when a court enters “an order as to the parentage” of a child, as contemplating the issuance of certificates of birth showing that a child had no mother at birth, is it. The majority recognizes this to be the case when saying: “The paternity statute, clearly, did not contemplate the many poten*299tial legal issues arising from these new technologies, issues that will continue to arise unless the laws are rewritten or construed in light of these new technologies.” Ante at 279, 923 A.2d at 122. Yet it sets about changing the reach of the statute because, “What has not been fathomed, however, exists today.” Ante at 279, 923 A.2d at 134. Then the majority creates new public policy permitting the manufacturing of children, saying:
“Again, the paternity statute, as written, provides an opportunity for genetically unlinked males to avoid parentage, while genetically unlinked females do not have the same option. This Court has found that any action by the State, without a substantial basis, that imposes a burden on, or grants a benefit to one sex, and not the other, violates the Maryland Equal Rights Amendment.”
Ante at 279-80, 923 A.2d at 134 (footnote omitted).
I suggest, that the majority’s decision today is not what was fathomed when the General Assembly enacted the relevant statute and also was not what the people of the State thought they were approving when they approved the Equal Rights Amendment (the writer amongst them). It simply defies common sense and all principles of logic to hold that the people of the State and their representatives thought at the time they were enacting and approving the statute and the Constitutional Amendment, that they were permitting the courts to create a procedure whereby children would end up not having any mothers, even at birth.
Additionally, as noted earlier, when, in this case, the majority of the Court holds that it is permissible for a child to be listed as having no birth mother (either the donor of the egg, who is actually the genetic mother, or the woman who carries the fetus through gestation and then “births” the child), partially on the implied basis that neither intended to be a mother, they are creating a violation of the Equal Rights Amendment in doing so. If a genetic mother and a birth mother can deny maternity because neither intended to be mothers, men, who at the time of intercourse in many instances do not intend to be fathers either, can certainly present an *300argument that they are being discriminated against. If genetic and birth mothers can deny all maternity, why cannot genetic fathers and fathers present at birth deny all paternity. In so far as the Constitution is concerned, it would make no difference if the child results from accident or intent. One could even logically determine that a person who intends conception to occur (for whatever purpose), as opposed to one who hopes it would not, should have at least some, if not more, of a support burden.
I point to the possibilities discussed in this dissent, even though some may consider them to be remote, to highlight why the issues presented here should be left to the Legislative Branch to first address. That entity has the resources, via studies and commissions, better access to ethicists and social scientists, and the like, to fully explore the full range of questions surrounding this issue and similar issues that will inevitably occur in the future.5 This Court simply lacks the resources available to the General Assembly.
*301In my view, if ever there was an instance for deference to the Legislative Branch of government — to permit it an opportunity to set public policy — it is this case. Instead, less than seven unelected (in contested elections) judges, are, in essence, stating that it is good public policy for the people of this State to permit the manufacturing of children who have no mothers — even at the moment of birth. The majority today eliminates, in circumstances such as these, a mother from whom a child could depend upon for support. What is going to happen, if in fact men are afforded the same rights that the majority says in the present case are due to women? There would be no father upon whom the child could depend upon for support — and no mother upon whom the child could depend. The decision the Court renders today has broad consequences for the State that must support children for whom there are limited or no means of support. This is another reason to defer to the Legislature — to determine issues relating to the best interests of children, and the resulting State responsibility if the position of the majority were to be the law of this State.
Additionally, the literature relating to families is replete with conclusions respecting the value of having fathers as a part of the process of family life-available from the birth of the child. Certainly there is similar, or even greater, value in having mothers involved in the rearing of children. Until now, I presume that it was not thought necessary to specifically relate such issues to females in that mothers obviously were going to be present at birth. But with this case, according to the majority, there is to be no mother — just a petridish.
One only has to contemplate what might occur as the child matures, in order to believe that this issue is best left to the representatives of the people. What happens when a child is asked to present a birth certificate at a customs area in a foreign country (until recently that is all that was required of American citizens in many countries, and remains so in some) *302and a customs inspector sees that the birth certificate indicates that the person standing in front of him or her states that the person has no mother — or even no father or mother? What happens when the child presents such a birth certificate to authorities outside (or inside) this State in an attempt to acquire a passport? What happens when such a certificate is presented in the admission processes of colleges or presented when one wants to enlist in the armed services? How is the child going to be adversely affected throughout its minority when it has no mother from whom support can be obtained— and no mother at all? There are many reasons why the General Assembly might decide that it is in the best interests of children to have a surrogate or donor mother’s name on a birth certificate and that, if afterwards she could establish that she should not have the obligations of a mother, she could seek the termination of her status in order to end her legal responsibility. But the Court assumes the policy mantle instead.
Certainly, there can be answers developed in respect to all of these questions and the many others that may exist that I have not presented. But, courts, including this Court, are uniquely unsuited for the tasks that will lie ahead. I differ from my colleagues in the majority, not so much because I believe them to be necessarily wrong in their ultimate result (as long as it will be applied equally to men), but because I think they are wrong in the doing of it. This issue, and the many similar ones, that will now arise, are best left to those who are closer to the people than those of us in our so-called “ivory towers” (although it could be argued that our towers are mahogany and red) who are constitutionally removed from the people of the State.
By its holding, the majority, in my view, under the circumstances of the issues presented here, has discarded the principle of judicial restraint in favor of one that improperly usurps the power of the General Assembly. Somewhere in this mad rush in which our society is engaged, at a time when increasing population contributes to many of the world’s problems, *303even judges should occasionally pause and say, “What are we doing?”
I would affirm the finding of the trial court that the resolution of this issue does not lie within the Judicial Branch of government but within the Legislative Branch.
Dissenting Opinion by HARRELL, J., which RAKER, J., Joins.
We dissent not because we are persuaded that the Majority opinion necessarily is incorrect, but rather because, on the record before us, we are unpersuaded that the Majority opinion is correct or the question necessarily must be decided at present. We hasten to explain the seeming conundrum.
The Majority opinion supplies a judicial gloss to the Maryland statutory scheme for establishment of paternity,1 ostensibly in order to avoid declaring the statute violative of equal protection principles, a conclusion it indicates it otherwise would reach if forced to confront the challenge frontally. Maj. *304op. at 279-84, 928 A.2d at 122-25. If actually confronted with a constitutional question that appropriately may be evaded, we count ourselves among the last who would criticize such a jurisprudential side-step. The specific question the Majority opinion conceives as being raised, apparently properly, by Appellant is: “Must the name of a genetically unrelated gestational host of a fetus, with whom Appellant contracted to carry in vitro fertilized embryos to term that resulted in children being born, be listed as the mother on the birth certificate?” Maj. op. at 270, 923 A.2d at 117. The analysis in which the Majority opinion engages explores deep issues, with ripples extending well beyond those raised on the record before us. We should not set sail prematurely upon this great legal and societal ocean without a better global positioning system (e.g., thorough opposing briefs and a well-developed record) as a guide. Instead, we should vacate the decision of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County and remand for further proceedings.
This case proceeded essentially as what tennis players call a walkover. That is, there was no opponent on the other side of the net; no person or entity to expose or test Appellant’s contentions, factual or legal; a situation which the Majority opinion sweeps up and describes simply as “the unusual procedural posture of this case.” Maj. op. at 271, 923 A.2d at 117. Appellant, the unmarried contributor of the sperm that was used in a laboratory to fertilize the eggs obtained from the unmarried egg donor, filed a two page petition in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County asking, among other things, that Holy Cross Hospital be “authorized” to report to the Maryland Division of Vital Records that the twins bom to a third party surrogate “carrier” of the fertilized embryos have no mother. Appellant sought to be designated as the father and the children assigned his surname. No equal protection argument, expressly or implicitly, was advanced. Accompanying his petition were three affidavits, one from Appellant, one from the egg donor, and one from the surrogate carrier.
The egg donor, a friend of Appellant, attested on 6 August 2001 that she was unmarried at the time of donation and that it was her understanding that, if, as, and when viable embryos *305were created from the joining of her eggs and Appellant’s sperm, some other woman would carry the embryos to term, and “the child(ren) will be registered as the biological child(ren) of the father and the surrogate,” with an attempt thereafter made to delete the surrogate’s name as mother on the birth certificate.2
The surrogate, who gave birth to the children at Holy Cross, stated in her 24 August 2001 affidavit, that she was not “in any way genetically related to the children born to me on August 23, 2001” and that she did not want “to be named in any way on [their] birth certificates.... ” She consented to the relief sought by Appellant. Her affidavit and that of Appellant were subscribed to before Appellant’s then-counsel, who served as notary public. No copies of any written contractual agreements between Appellant, the donor and/or the surrogate carrier were alluded to in, let alone attached to, the petition, consent, or affidavits. No averments were alleged in the petition, affidavits, or consent as to consideration supporting the alleged undertakings and understandings as stated between the three participants. The petition was denied, without hearing, by succinct order of court dated 29 August 2001 and filed on 6 September 2001.
On or about 17 September 2001, Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, through his then-counsel (the same person who represented him in filing the original petition and supporting papers and who notarized Appellant’s and the surrogate’s affidavits). Besides reiterating the allegations of the original petition, Appellant’s then-counsel contended:
The Court’s denial of Petitioner’s request leaves Petitioner and the surrogate in a legally awkward posture. The birth certificates for the subject children will now bear the Peti*306tioner’s name as the father and the surrogate’s name as the mother.
Thus, the Court’s action has the operative effect of allowing inaccurate information to be filed in official State records; and of bestowing parental rights and responsibilities on the surrogate who has no biological or adoptive parental link to the children — and expressly made clear that she did not want any. In so doing, the operative effect on the Petitioner is to diminish his sole/exclusive parental position to a shared parental position in which his rights and responsibilities only extend to the point where hers (even though they are biologically and legally nonexistent) begin. The operative effect of the Court’s denial also impacts future inheritance rights of the subject children and those of the surrogate’s own biological children, even though they are in no way parties to this matter.
None of the persons sought, or even expected, and do not want the result that will occur. Indeed, the very purpose in petitioning the Court was to obtain the court’s assistance in clarifying the accurate parentage, to ensure that correct information would be filed with the State, and to avoid precisely the result which would come to pass in the absence of the Petitioner instituting this matter.
The entire thrust of the reconsideration motion was whether reporting the surrogate as the children’s mother was inaccurate. No equal protection argument regarding the application of the paternity statute was mounted.
In response to the motion for reconsideration, the Circuit Court issued an order, dated 2 October 2001 and filed on 4 October 2001, declaring Appellant the father of the twin girls and directing Holy Cross Hospital to issue birth certificates for the children with Appellant’s surname, but including the surrogate birth mother’s name as their mother. On 1 November 2001, Appellant’s then-counsel filed a request for hearing on the reconsideration request, complaining that he did not receive a hearing on the motion, although one was requested, and that the Court’s 29 August order denying relief and its 2 October 2001 order granting some, but not all of the relief *307sought originally, “seem[s] somewhat unclear or inconsistent.” 3
A hearing on the motion for reconsideration was set for 10 December 2001. Replacement counsel entered her appearance for Appellant (and who continued to represent him on appeal) on 7 December 2001, the same day on which separate counsel entered an appearance for the surrogate. No consideration of appointing counsel for the children was evident. The hearing on reconsideration was rescheduled for 14 January 2002.
In Appellant’s 14 January 2002 hearing memorandum, he nowhere raises a facial or as-applied equal protection challenge to the statutory scheme. His arguments there were that the “gestational surrogate” was not the mother and was in no way biologically related to the children; therefore, it was asserted to be in the best interest of the children not to have her name appear on the birth certificates. Appellant thus argued the best interest of the children standard in the case, albeit in a way that benefited only his desired result. It was contended in the memorandum, for the first time in the proceeding, that Appellant “entered into a variation to the traditional surrogacy contract called a ‘gestational surrogate contract’.” In such an arrangement, it was claimed, while “one or both of the prospective parents may be biologically related to the child, [t]he surrogate provides only a ‘host uterus’.” No copy of the contract was attached to the memorandum, nor was it offered at the hearing.
At the 14 January 2002 hearing on the previously denied motion for reconsideration, Appellant’s new counsel uttered the words “equal protection” for the first time in this record:
You can take a putative father and as I said it a moment ago, you can hang that child on him. You can say if you don’t want to be the father, we will haul you into court. We will take your genetic material. We will match it to the *308child and if it matches, you’re the father. You’re the parent. It is at the moment that we can determine that the genetics match, that the obligations, duties and rights of parenthood attach to that individual.
You would have an equal protection argument if you said that well, that is not true for the mother. It is the passage down the birth canal that makes the mother the mother, not the genetics.
Further relevant reference does not appear until ten pages later in the transcript when Appellant’s counsel obliquely (giving her the benefit of much doubt) alludes that:
The legislature has tried over the past two decades no less than five times to deal with this issue and they have not been able to do so when they have passed laws one way, the Governor has vetoed them. When they have passed laws the other way, they fail in one House or the other. It is— there is a paucity of law. I agree with that.
But should Courts be called upon to deal with these issues when the legislature doesn’t? Sometimes the court has to lead and we can all think of the cases where the Court has done that. They all do it in the areas of Civil Rights and Equal Rights and that is where this case is.
Counsel for the surrogate, other than adopting a “me too” approach regarding what Appellant’s counsel said, did not mention, explicitly or implicitly, an equal protection argument. She filed no legal memorandum and failed to invoke any legal authorities. In essence, the one-sided argumentative presentation to the Circuit Court was essentially purely policy-driven.
In the Circuit Court’s 9 July 2002 bench ruling reaffirming and explaining its earlier denial of the motion for reconsideration, the trial judge stated, among other things, that he was concerned greatly, on this record, with whether it was in the best interests of the twins that they be declared effectively motherless. The Court also saw, as a partial solution to the complications expressed by Appellant and the surrogate mother, the prospect of a consent petition to terminate the surro*309gate mother’s rights (but which would leave her named on the birth certificates as “mother”). It seems clear that the trial judge did not perceive Appellant’s or the surrogate’s legal arguments seriously to include an equal protection challenge because he did not address such a contention.
The appeal noted to the Court of Special Appeals by Appellant was not joined by the surrogate. She filed no appeal and no brief. Her counsel, in a letter to the Court, indicated nonetheless that “she wished to join in the brief of the Appellant.” Thus, the case, when taken by us, on the Court’s initiative, before the intermediate appellate court could act, proceeded with only Appellant’s inadequate (in our view) brief and his not-much-more enlightening oral argument.
We are satisfied that, on this record, an equal protection challenge to the Maryland paternity statute, factually or as applied, was neither properly presented, argued, or decided in the Circuit Court. Combined with the one-sidedness of how the matter proceeded in the Circuit Court and before this Court, and the gaps in the record, we are unwilling to exercise the discretion granted by Md. Rule 8-131(a) (“[o]rdinarily, the appellate court will not decide any other issue unless it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the trial court, but the Court may decide such an issue if necessary or desirable to guide the trial court or to avoid the expense and delay of another appeal.”) to reach and decide the issues decided by the Majority opinion.4
*310The condition of the record in the present case is reminiscent of that confronting the Court of Special Appeals in Dintaman v. Board of County Comm’rs of Prince George’s County, 17 Md.App. 345, 303 A.2d 442 (1973). In Dintaman, the plaintiff in the trial court waited until his Motion for Rehearing, filed after summary judgment was entered against him, to raise constitutional arguments of denial of due process and equal protection. 17 Md.App. at 347, 303 A.2d at 443. The motion was denied, without a hearing, in a terse order which made no mention of the constitutional arguments. Id. The intermediate appellate court, when Dintaman pressed his constitutional attack before it, opined:
It is not entirely clear that in ruling on the Motion for Rehearing [the trial judge] considered constitutional issues, and indeed it would have been difficult for him to do so because there was no evidence against which such issues could be measured, and they were not developed through the adversary process which is required for their proper determination.
As Chief Judge Murphy said for this Court in Vuitch v. State, 10 Md.App. 389, at pages 397 and 398, 271 A.2d 371, at page 376:
*311But it would be foolhardy in the extreme to undertake the resolution of such complex constitutional questions upon a record as procedurally and substantively deficient as that now before us-one in which the constitutional questions, though readily apparent prior to trial, were raised for the first time after the State had concluded its case-in-chief, and then only by an inappropriate motion (generally alleging unconstitutionality along a front far more limited in thrust than that presently sought to be aired), submitted without comment, or illuminating argument. Whether the trial judge actually considered appellant’s constitutional claims cannot be ascertained from the record since in denying the motion he made no comment thereon, and may well have concluded, quite properly, that the constitutional questions could not be raised at that juncture of the proceedings by motion for judgment of acquittal. Of course, nothing is better settled than the rule that a question as to the constitutionality of a statute will not be considered on appeal when not properly raised and decided by the lower court.
Id. at 350-51, 303 A.2d at 444-45. See also Harmony v. State, 88 Md.App. 306, 316-17, 594 A.2d 1182, 1187 (1991) (internal footnotes omitted):
Pursuant to Md. Rule 8-131(a), ordinarily, we do not decide any issue unless it “plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the lower court.” It is clear that the limitations argument was never “decided” or “directly passed upon” by the circuit court. Nor was the question ever argued in the traditional sense. Indeed, it was barely mentioned below. “To preserve an issue for appellate review, it must first have been presented, with particularity, as to the trial court.” An offhand remark that the “statute of limitations or something like that” might “come into play” is simply not particular enough to allow appellate review. A party must bring his argument to the attention of the trial court with enough particularity that the court is aware first, that there is an issue before it, and secondly, what the parameters of the issue are. The trial *312court needs sufficient information to allow it to make a thoughtful judgment.
# * *
He was required[ ] to present the issue to the trial court with enough particularity to allow a reasoned decision upon the matter. Because he failed to do so, we will not consider the issue on this appeal.
We believe the interests of the children need to be heard and considered. We would remand the case and direct the trial judge to appoint counsel for the twins and compel Appellant to pay their counsel’s legal fees. Only then might a record be made upon which we might be satisfied that we should go where the Majority opinion goes.
The Majority opinion’s disposition of the best interests of the child(ren) standard as “inappropriate” (Maj. op. at 292-93, 923 A.2d at 130-31) to the context of this case depends in large measure on its declination to come to grips with the legal meaning of “parent,” “mother,” or “father,” in light of the admitted and relevant scientific advances apparently not contemplated by the statutory scheme. The Majority’s analysis (Maj. op. at 284-93, 923 A.2d at 125-31) beggars the meaning of these key concepts, and focuses instead on analytical differences between custody and visitation cases involving parent-versus-parent on one hand and parent versus non-parent on the other. The Majority opinion overlooks that it was Appellant who injected the best interest of the children standard in this case. We can think of a number of emotional, material support, and possibly medical reasons why it may not be in the best interests of these children to be declared motherless. It should not be left entirely to judicial conjecture and creativity, however, what the universe of those reasons may be. This record begs for further development before we come to grips with the issues decided by the Majority opinion. If Appellant wishes us to lead through uncharted Maryland waters in an area where the Legislature *313is better suited to consider the competing legal and societal values, but may have been unwilling to do so, he needs to do a better job of persuading us if he wants our vote.
Judge RAKER has authorized me to say that she joins in this dissent.

. The record is unclear as to the source of the sperm.

. The majority holds that it is a violation of the Equal Rights Amendment for women not to be able to disclaim maternity altogether, even though one of them produces the egg and the other carries it through gestation and it emerges from her birth canal — because a man has a right to challenge paternity. The majority fails to acknowledge that what a man challenges is that it is his sperm that fertilized the relevant egg. In the present case, there is no challenge to the fact that the *297particular woman produced the egg and that the other woman bore the child and “birthed” it. The equivalent really would be, if the father acknowledged that his sperm had fertilized the egg, but that at the time of intercourse he did not intend it to do so or to be a father and thus the Court should declare him not to be the father. If such a provision existed for a father but not a mother, the Equal Rights Amendment might be violated. But it does not now exist for either by statute, although with the majority’s opinion it will now exist for the mother but not the father — a situation that may well be a violation of the Equal Rights Amendment. That amendment guarantees equal treatment to men as well as women.

. With the majority's decision today that the mother from whom the child is delivered is not to be considered the mother (and apparently the donor of the egg is not to be considered the mother), the Court opens up the very real possibility that completely disinterested persons will (or could) commence the manufacture of children. For instance, an entrepreneur could contract with a sperm donor, contract with an egg donor, contract with an assembler, contract with a woman to carry the child through the gestation period, and a child could be manufactured with neither a mother nor a father. The child could then be put up for adoption at a price — and a new business, in the spirit of American ingenuity, is created. That is, of course, if it can be determined who, if anybody or any entity, would have custody of the child. This is, I realize, virtually incomprehensible to reasoned thought — but, why will it not be something that can happen on the way down the "slippery slope” created by the majority?

. The man that made the arrangements is the plaintiff in this case and, perhaps, the donor of the sperm.

. Other countries recognize the need for ethical overview of new and emerging fertilization techniques. In England, in an article entitled The. prospect of all-female conception, the author notes:
"Scientists are seeking ethical permission to produce synthetic sperm cells from a woman's bone marrow____
"Creating sperm from women would mean they would only be able to produce daughters____The latest research brings the prospect of female-only conception a step closer.
"We are in the process of applying for ethical approval.
“Whether the scientists will ever be able to develop the techniques to help real patients-male or female-will depend on future legislation that the Government is preparing as a replacement to the existing Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.”
Steve Connor, The prospect of all-female conception, The Independent, April 13, 2007, http://news.independent.co.u k/world/science — technology/article2444462.ece (last visited April 13, 2007). With the developing science in the area of manufacturing children, and with the problems associated with expanding populations, I would respectfully suggest that courts are uniquely unsuited to lead the ethical debates that lie in the near future. Better, in my view, would be a position where the courts, as with most areas of great social concern, initially defer to the processes of the legislative branch where all of the important issues can be rationally debated, instead of courts charging to the forefront, and thus generating the debate as a reaction to their decisions. The issue before the Court today has not been simmering unanswered for decades *301while the General Assembly ignores it; as far as the record shows this is the first instance this issue has been raised in any forum in this State.

. Chauvinistically titled, Subtitle 10 of the Family Law Article of the Md.Code ("Paternity Proceedings”) indeed sends mixed messages about establishment of the titles of parent, father, and mother. Although claiming that one of its purposes is "to impose on the mothers and fathers of children born out of wedlock the basic obligations and responsibilities of parenthood” (§ 5-1002(b)(2)), most of the mechanisms for resolving questions of questioned parenthood are framed in terms of ascertaining who is the father, as the Majority opinion accurately points out. It is obvious that the statute, in its current state, is a product of simpler scientific times regarding the process of human reproduction. Paternity historically was the usual question, where unmarried or adulterous coupling was concerned, because a father's contribution leading to a birth often occurred under the cover of darkness (literally or figuratively), while a mother’s giving birth to the child traditionally occurred under the bright lights of a hospital room or the eyes of a midwife, though not always so. That a woman gave birth largely was undeniable, while who the father was often was the subject of some contention. It is now undeniable that advances in the science of reproductive technologies have created new challenges and a certain amount of obsolescence in many of the underlying premises of the paternity statute as it exists presently. The Majority opinion points that out well. The situation cries out for legislative review and action, but not necessarily judicial intervention at this point and certainly not on the record before us in this case.

. Moreover, the donor expressed in clear language that she wanted no relationship or responsibility for any children born from the fertilized eggs. Specifically, she stated “I do not want my name on any birth certificate(s) ... and if my name does somehow get placed on such birth certificate, I want it removed.”

. We find no lack of clarity or inconsistency. Appellant may have been chagrined that he did not get everything he sought, but he had no claim to lack of clarity or consistency.

. Appellant’s brief in this Court is woefully inadequate to support the license taken by the Majority opinion. His entire equal protection argument in his brief is as follows:
The parentage statutes as enforced by the court below do not afford equal protection of the law to men and women similarly situated.
If the gestational carrier was a man she could deny parentage. And if no genetic link could be established, she would be found not to be a parent and the matter would end. Not so with a woman under the lower court ruling.
She has asked to be removed from the children's birth certificates. In effect denying maternity. It is established as legal fact that she is not genetically related to either child, yet she is to be forced by the state to be the legal mother of these children.
*310The doctor on the other hand, being a man, could challenge paternity and succeed, because he is not genetically related to the children.
Such disparate treatment does not comport with Article 46 of the Md. Dec. of R. art. 46 (2001) which states that "[e]quality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex.”
Under the interpretation of the § 4-211 urged by Appellant, no such equal protection argument would exist, because a non-genetic gestational carrier could apply to the court for a parentage order and receive one upon a showing that she was genetically related to the child and never intended to be its parent.
There is already a body of law in this jurisdiction governing the protection of the rights of non-genetically related individuals who desire to fulfill the role of parent for a child.
No cases are offered to support this argument. No effort is made to detail any failed legislative history in addressing the problems envisioned by Appellant, which he boldly claimed to be the case at the reconsideration hearing in the Circuit Court. See supra at 6.