Partanen v. Gallagher (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-157-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-12018 KAREN PARTANEN vs. JULIE GALLAGHER. Middlesex. April 5, 2016. – October 4, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.[1] Parentage. Statute, Construction. Complaint in equity filed in the Middlesex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on October 17, 2014. A motion to dismiss was heard by Jeffrey A. Abber, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Mary Lisa Bonauto (Elizabeth A. Roberts, Teresa Harkins La Vita, Patience Crozier, & Joyce Kauffman with her) for the plaintiff. Jennifer M. Lamanna for the defendant. The following submitted briefs for amicus curiae: Thomas Brown for Greater Boston Legal Services & others. Emily R. Shulman, Brook Hopkins, & Adam M Cambier for American Academy of Assisted Reproductive Technology Attorneys & others. Abigail Taylor, Gail Garinger, Brittany Williams, & Andrea C. Kramer, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Attorney General. Shannon Minter, of California, Marco J. Quina, & Emma S. Winer for forty-two law professors & another. LENK, J. In 2014, the plaintiff, Karen Partanen, filed a complaint in the Probate and Family Court seeking to establish legal parentage of two young children. The complaint alleged that she and the defendant, Julie Gallagher, had been in a committed, nonmarital relationship between 2001 and 2013. Using in vitro fertilization, and with Partanen’s “full acknowledgment, participation, and consent,” Gallagher gave birth to the two children. Thereafter, Partanen and Gallagher represented themselves publicly as the children’s parents, and jointly raised the children until their 2013 separation. On the basis of these allegations, Partanen’s complaint sought a declaration of parentage pursuant to, among other things, G. L. c. 209C, § 6 (a) (4). That statute provides that “a man is presumed to be the father of a child” born out of wedlock if “he, jointly with the mother, received the child into their home and openly held out the child as their child.” Concluding that Partanen could not be deemed a presumed parent under G. L. c. 209C, § 6 (a) (4), because it was undisputed that she was not the children’s biological parent, a judge of the Probate and Family Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Mass. R. Dom. Rel. P. 12(b)(6). In addressing Partanen’s claims on direct appellate review, we […]