Gatsby v. Gatsby

495 P.3d 996 (Idaho 2021)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P and Kylee (D), a same sex couple, married in June 2015. They later decided D would attempt to conceive a child through artificial insemination, using semen donated by a mutual friend. P, D, and the semen donor signed an artificial insemination agreement P found online, listing the friend as 'donor' and both P and D as the 'recipient.' The agreement included acknowledgments that the recipient intended to become pregnant and to have rights to the child, and that the donor would not have parental rights or obligations to the child. P performed the insemination procedure on D in their home. After several attempts, D became pregnant. On October 29, 2016, D gave birth to the child. D is the child's biological mother. P was present at the birth. The birth certificate worksheet, designates D as 'mother,' and the word 'father' on the form is crossed out, and 'mother' is written by hand in its place to also identify P as the child's mother. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare issued a Certificate of Live Birth identifying both P and D as the child's mothers. The child resided with P and D, who held themselves out as the child's parents. Both shared in caregiving, but D was the child's primary caregiver. The couple had an argument. P punched D, breaking her nose. The child was in the bedroom during the fight, and P's two children from a prior relationship were also in the home. D was arrested and subsequently pleaded guilty to domestic battery, a misdemeanor. D had also committed an act of domestic violence years earlier. A No Contact Order ('NCO') was issued, which prohibited D from seeing the child except at daycare. P filed for divorce. D filed an Answer and Counterclaim, asserting that P had 'no legal claim or standing to any custody or visitation' to the minor child. D became rehabilitated by successfully participating in a Domestic Violence Offender Intervention/Treatment class. After sharing custody for nearly one year, on November 15, 2018, the magistrate court granted sole custody of the child to D. It held that P was not the child's legal parent, P had established no third-party rights, and, in the alternative, it was not in the child's best interest for the court to award P custody or visitation rights as a third party based on the evidence in the record. P did not sign or properly file a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity affidavit pursuant to Idaho Code § 7-1106. P did not adopt [the child] pursuant to Idaho Code § 16-1501 et seq. P did not comply with the Artificial Insemination Act and cannot receive [the benefit. P did not sign or file a consent form pursuant to Idaho Code § 39-5403. Had P done so, she would have been a legal parent. P does not get the benefit of the law that she did not invoke and follow. The magistrate found that it was not in the child's best interest to award custody or visitation rights to P as a third party. The district court affirmed the magistrate court's decisions. P appealed.