Court Opinion

ID: 9947919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-05 21:10:54.232418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:46.860312
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                               EASTERN DISTRICT

 CHANEL GLOVER,                                    : No. 10 EAL 2024
                                                   :
                      Petitioner                   :
                                                   : Petition for Allowance of Appeal
                                                   : from the Order of the Superior Court
               v.                                  :
                                                   :
                                                   :
 NICOLE JUNIOR,                                    :
                                                   :
                      Respondent                   :

                                          ORDER

PER CURIAM

       AND NOW, this 5th day of March, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:

       (1)    Did the Superior Court’s en banc decision conflict with the holding of the
              Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in C.G. v. J.H., 193 A.3d 891 (Pa. 2018),
              by concluding the spouse of the biological mother of a child conceived
              through Assistive Reproductive Technology, who bore no biological
              relationship to the child, had a right to parentage of the child, where no
              contract term establishing the spouse as a legal parent existed and the
              Superior Court applied “intent-based” parentage, to reach its conclusion
              that an oral contract established the spouse as a legal parent?

       (2)    Should the doctrine of “intent-based” parentage be adopted in Pennsylvania
              in the context of a child conceived through Assistive Reproductive
              Technology?
       (3)    Did the Superior Court err in holding the spouse of the biological parent of
              a child conceived through Assistive Reproductive Technology, who bore no
              biological relationship to the child, had a right to legal parentage of the child
              as a matter of equity under the circumstances of this case?

Justice McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.