T.F. v. B.L.

813 N.E.2d 1244 (2004)

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 D began living together in the fall of 1996. The couple held a “commitment ceremony.” Subsequently, they pooled their money and nominated each other as beneficiaries of their respective life insurance policies and retirement plans. P wanted to have a child. As a result of a 1999 conversation, P scheduled an appointment with her doctor to discuss pregnancy. P went to that appointment alone, but subsequently, both parties attended appointments with a second doctor at a facility specializing in reproduction and fertility procedures (clinic). The parties decided to proceed with P's artificial insemination. The clinic presented the couple with a document entitled “Consent Form: Therapeutic Donor Sperm Insemination.” D claims she told her sister and a friend that, from the time of the 1999 conversation, she “went along” with having a baby because she got “tired of the arguments” and “didn't want to take P's dream away.” In December 1999, P became pregnant. Things went bad, and D moved out of their apartment in May 2000. Prior to leaving, D expressed her regrets about being a “separated parent,” said she desired to adopt the child, and “promised financial support and promised to talk later about the details since she wanted to just focus on the break-up of the relationship at that time.” P gave birth to a boy. D visited P and child in the hospital several times, participated in selecting his name, and promised to provide support and to change her work hours to help raise him. D gave P $800. D sent pictures of herself with the child, via the Internet, to friends accompanied by the message: “I hope you all enjoy the pics of my wonderful, beautiful boy.” In October 2000, the parties argued for over an hour about support for the child. D “acknowledged that she was not paying child support because she was angry at P.” Later that month, D sent a letter to P, declaring that she desired no further contact with P or the child. In January 2001, P filed a complaint for child support on theories of promissory estoppel and breach of an oral contract. The judge found that there was an agreement “to create a child,” which D had breached. The judge found that there was no written agreement between the parties regarding having a child together, that D is not biologically related to the child, and that she has never lived with him. The judge found further that D's name does not appear on the birth certificate, that she did not adopt the child, and that she has made no financial contributions for the benefit of the child, except the payment of $800 to P shortly after the baby was born. The court found no explicit promise except to “explore the possibility of having a child.” The judge then held because of D's subsequent behavior and failure to “stop or slow down” Ps pregnancy, a binding contract was created between the parties. The judge reported the matter to the Appeals Court pursuant to G.L. c. 215, § 13 for a determination whether “parenthood by contract is the law of Massachusetts.” P's application for direct appellate review was granted.