While LC—a U.S. Navy officer —was deployed overseas, her wife MG became pregnant by assisted reproduction . MG had not sought LC's consent to having a
child, or to the assisted reproduction procedure . LC
was not present for the birth of the child in Hawaii .
They share no biological connection . LC has never met
the child. However, LC's name was included by MG on
the birth certificate as "co-parent " without LC's consent. Hawaii's Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) provides
that "[a] man i s presumed to be the natural father of a
child if . . . [h]e and the child's natural mother are or
have been married to each other and the child is born
during the marriage . . . ." The unanimous Hawaii Supreme Court held that under the UPA and Hawaii's
marriage equality act, the term "father" includes both
men and women . Because LC and MG were in a valid
marriage at the time of the child's birth, LC was presumed to be the child's legal parent. But a bare majority of the court a lso concluded that the statute did not
permit LC to rebut the presumption of paternity by introducing evidence that she did not consent to her wife
having a child.

Does the Fourteenth Amendment require that a
spouse , who is presumed to be the parent of a child because she is married to the child's natural mother , be
able to rebut that presumption with evidence she did
not consent to having the child?

Does the Fourteenth Amendment require that a spouse, who is presumed to be the parent of a child because she is married to the child's natural mother, be able to rebut that presumption with evidence she did not consent to having the child?