The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent decision in Glover v. Junior marks a significant development in family law, particularly for parents who conceive children through assisted reproductive technology (ART). The case arose from a custody dispute between Chanel Glover and Nicole Junior, a married same-sex couple. Glover carried the child using her own eggs and a donor sperm chosen jointly with Junior, with both women entering into agreements that identified Junior as a co-intended parent. Although the couple separated before the child’s birth, Junior sought legal recognition as a parent, and after favorable rulings in the lower courts, the issue reached the Supreme Court.
In its opinion, the Court carefully reviewed the existing four recognized pathways to legal parentage in Pennsylvania: biology, adoption, the marital presumption or estoppel, and contract. None applied directly to Junior’s situation. She was neither a genetic nor gestational parent, no adoption had occurred, the couple’s separation precluded application of the marital presumption, and the contracts they had signed did not satisfy the traditional requirements of contract law. Faced with these limitations, the Court established a fifth pathway: intent-based parentage.
By doing so, the Court recognized that when two people mutually intend to conceive and raise a child through ART, and their actions support that shared intention, parentage can be established without relying on biology or formal adoption. Importantly, the Court stressed that family planning decisions of this kind are not commercial bargains requiring traditional elements of consideration, but deeply personal agreements warranting dignity and recognition. Courts evaluating such claims must consider evidence across the full timeline—from pre-conception discussions and agreements to involvement during pregnancy, birth, and afterward.
The ruling has wide-ranging implications. While the dispute in Glover v. Junior involved a same-sex couple, the decision extends far beyond those facts. It applies broadly to families formed through assisted reproduction, regardless of marital status, and emphasizes the child’s need for emotional and financial stability. By prioritizing intent as a foundation for legal parentage, the Court provided a tool to fill gaps in the law and protect children whose families might otherwise face uncertainty.
For families, the lesson is clear: intent should be documented as carefully as possible, whether through affidavits, written agreements, or consistent actions reflecting the desire to co-parent. For practitioners, the ruling means courts will now examine comprehensive evidence of intent when separation occurs, even before a child is born. The decision also highlights the importance of legislative reform, with momentum already building for Pennsylvania to adopt a Uniform Parentage Act that would codify intent-based parentage.
Ultimately, Glover v. Junior is more than a custody dispute resolved between two individuals. It is a consequential decision that establishes intent-based parentage as a new pillar of Pennsylvania family law. By extending its reasoning beyond the immediate facts, the Court ensured that children born through assisted reproduction will be afforded greater legal stability, and that intended parents will have clearer recognition under the law.