I. Core Legal Issues in ART Parentage Disputes

1. Marital Presumption vs Genetic Reality

Traditionally, a child born in marriage is presumed to be the husband’s child. ART breaks this presumption when donor gametes are used.

2. Surrogacy Complications

Questions arise:

• Is the surrogate the legal mother?
• Are commissioning parents automatically legal parents?

3. Consent in ART Procedures

Disputes often occur when:

• One spouse consents to IVF, the other withdraws
• Embryos are created during marriage but used after separation

4. Inheritance and Legitimacy

Whether ART-born children are “legitimate heirs” of marital property.

II. Judicial Approaches to Parentage in ART

Courts generally use three competing tests:

(A) Genetic Test

Parent = DNA contributor.

(B) Gestational Test

Parent = woman who gives birth.

(C) Intent-Based Test (Modern dominant view)

Parent = person who intended to raise the child through ART.

III. Important Case Laws (ART Parentage Disputes)

1. In re Baby M (1988, New Jersey Supreme Court)

This is a foundational surrogacy case.

Facts:

• A traditional surrogacy agreement was made.
• Surrogate (Mary Beth Whitehead) changed her mind after birth.

Held:

• Surrogacy contract was invalid as against public policy.
• Surrogate mother held to be the legal mother.
• Biological father retained parental rights.

Principle:

👉 Gestation + childbirth strongly influence legal motherhood, especially where contracts are unenforceable.

2. Johnson v. Calvert (1993, California Supreme Court)

Facts:

• Egg from intended mother, uterus of surrogate.
• Both claimed motherhood.

Held:

• Intended mother declared legal mother.

Principle:

👉 Court established “Intent-Based Parenthood Doctrine”:
The woman who intended to procreate and raise the child is the legal mother when genetic and gestational roles split.

3. In re Marriage of Buzzanca (1998, California Court of Appeal)

Facts:

• Embryo created using anonymous donor egg and sperm.
• Surrogate carried child.
• Intended parents divorced before birth.

Held:

• Both intended parents held legally responsible.

Principle:

👉 Even without genetic link, intentional creation of a child makes one a legal parent.

4. Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India (2008, Supreme Court of India)

Facts:

• Japanese couple used Indian surrogate.
• Couple separated before birth; child’s nationality became disputed.

Held:

• Recognized complexities of surrogacy.
• Custody allowed to be resolved considering best interest of child.

Principle:

👉 Indian Supreme Court acknowledged surrogacy parentage gaps and prioritized child welfare over strict biology or contract law.

5. Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality (2009, Gujarat High Court)

Facts:

• German couple had twin surrogate children in India.
• Citizenship and parentage issues arose.

Held:

• Recognized surrogate-born children as biological children of commissioning parents.
• Directed issuance of travel documents.

Principle:

👉 Courts leaned toward genetic + commissioning intent recognition in international surrogacy disputes.

6. ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2015, Supreme Court of India)

Facts:

• Single mother sought to register child without father’s identity disclosure.

Held:

• Allowed birth registration without naming father.
• Recognized autonomy in parentage declaration.

Principle:

👉 Reinforces that legal parentage can be independent of marital or paternal presumption when privacy and welfare demand it.

7. Re G (Children) (UK House of Lords, 2006)

Facts:

• Dispute over parental responsibility in assisted family arrangements.

Held:

• Emphasized welfare of child over rigid biological rules.

Principle:

👉 Courts prioritize child welfare and functional parenting roles over formal genetic links.

IV. Legal Principles Emerging from These Cases

1. Shift from Biology to Intent

Modern courts increasingly recognize:
👉 “Parent is the one who intended to bring up the child.”

2. Weakening of Marital Presumption

Marriage no longer automatically determines paternity in ART cases.

3. Surrogacy Requires Special Legal Treatment

Courts treat surrogacy as:

• Hybrid of contract + family law + constitutional rights

4. Child Welfare is Supreme

Across jurisdictions:
👉 Best interest of child overrides contractual disputes or biological claims.

V. Common Types of Disputes in Married Couples Using ART

1. Divorce During Embryo Stage

Who controls frozen embryos?

2. Donor Concealment Disputes

One spouse unaware of donor gametes.

3. Posthumous Conception

Whether deceased spouse is legal parent.

4. Surrogate Refusal Cases

Surrogate refusing to hand over child.

5. Citizenship + Inheritance Issues

Cross-border ART children facing legal identity gaps.

VI. Conclusion

Marriage-based parentage is no longer strictly biological in ART disputes. Courts across India, the US, and the UK have shifted toward:

• Intent-based parentage (dominant trend)
• Child welfare supremacy
• Partial recognition of genetic links
• Flexible treatment of marital presumptions

The law is still evolving, especially under new surrogacy and ART regulations, but the clear direction is:

👉 Parentage in assisted reproduction is determined more by intention and responsibility than by biology or marriage alone.