Mclaughlin v. Jones

Facts

In October 2008, Kimberly and Suzan, a same-sex couple, legally married in California. The couple decided to have a child through artificial insemination. Kimberly underwent the process and became pregnant. During the pregnancy, Kimberly and Suzan moved to Arizona. In February 2011, they entered a joint parenting agreement declaring Suzan a 'co-parent' of the child. In June 2011, Kimberly gave birth to a baby boy, E. Suzan stayed at home to care for E. When E. was almost two years old, Kimberly and Suzan's relationship deteriorated to the point that Kimberly moved out of their home, taking E. and cutting off Suzan's contact with him. Suzan filed petitions for dissolution and for legal decision-making and parenting time in loco parentis. Suzan challenged the constitutionality of Arizona's refusal to recognize lawful same-sex marriages performed in other states. The Supreme Court held in Obergefell that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry. The court reasoned that it would violate Suzan's Fourteenth Amendment rights not to afford her the same presumption of paternity that applies to a similarly situated man in an opposite-sex marriage. Additionally, the court held that Kimberly could not rebut Suzan's presumptive parentage because permitting rebuttal would allow a biological mother to use the undisputed fact of a consensual, artificial insemination to force the non-biological parent to pay child support. Kimberly sought special action review in the court of appeals. That court accepted jurisdiction but denied Kimberly relief, concluding that, under Obergefell, § 25-814(A) applies to same-sex spouses and that Suzan is the presumptive parent. The court reasoned that Kimberly was equitably estopped from rebutting Suzan's presumption of parentage under § 25-814(C). This appeal resulted. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.