Lesbian woman ordered to allow ex-wife to co-parent baby conceived through IVF, which both women funded.

 A Lesbian woman has been ordered to let her ex-wife co-parent a baby conceived through IVF which both of them paid for. 

 Nicole Junior, 43, filed a lawsuit claiming Chanel Glover, 41, forbade her from seeing the baby, conceived through a sperm donor and IVF – even though the exes split the $30,000 cost of the treatment equally. 

When Glover learned she was pregnant in January 2022 the couple, who lived together in Philadelphia and who are both trained attorneys, were excited about having a child together

Junior helped her wife with her daily injections and accompanied her to many of her doctor’s appointments, the Philly Inquirer reported. They also co-signed documents and contracts from the sperm bank and the fertility clinic. 

Junior was the ‘co-intended parent,’ and ‘second parent adoption’, while also being established as legal guardian, according to court filings.

The couple excitedly chose the baby’s name, held a baby shower, and were anticipating the birth, until they had issues in their marriage. 

They sought help from a therapist, to draw up a ‘healthy co-parenting plan,’ in the event the pair got divorced, as per court papers. 

About five-and-half months into the pregnancy the relationship ended, with Junior moving out of their shared home to Seattle, where she was offered writing residencies. 

Glover was no longer working on the co-parenting documents, it is claimed. She allegedly contacted Junior to tell her she’d decided to not go forward with their initial plan of having the child together and now intended to be a single mother. 

‘My only concern was having a safe birth and being able to give birth to a healthy child,’ Glover said.

She said she felt ‘relieved,’ after telling her former partner of the decision, and soon filed for divorce.

However, Junior was devastated. She felt that despite the collapse of their marriage, she believed she and Glover would still co-parent their child together.

As part of the divorce case, Junior filed a petition in which she asked the court to recognize her as a parent. 

According to court testimony, Glover alleged that Junior was ’emotionally abusive, volatile and impulsive.’ Junior denied those claims.

In May 2022, the couple appeared at a hearing together in Family Court.

Glover was close to her due date. The testimony between the couple was controversial, and the judge, Daniel Sulman, was unconvinced of Glover’s claim of being a single parent, the Philly Inquirer reported. 

The judge noted that the child was not conceived during a one-night stand, but the couple had planned and prepared together before conception. 

He believed in this case, it was ‘a lot more deliberate,’ and ruled that Junior was a legal parent and should have access to their son and be named on his birth certificate.

Glover appealed, it was reported. But weeks after the hearing, she had an emergency C-section. 

Their son was born healthy, but Junior did not learn about their child being born until she was sent flowers from her office on the baby’s birth. 

The case went to the Pennsylvania Superior Court in August 2023. Due to the nature of the topic, nine judges were present to hear the case, known as an ‘en banc.’

In December 2023, Junior was told that the court ruled in her favor, and she was granted full co-parental rights.

The judges said the key piece of evidence that convinced them to rule in Junior’s favor was that she and Glover had clearly intended to co-parent. 

The legal terms is ‘intent-based parentage.’

In December 2023, Junior was told that the court ruled in her favor, and she was granted full co-parental rights.

The judges said the key piece of evidence that convinced them to rule in Junior’s favor was that she and Glover had clearly intended to co-parent.

The legal terms is ‘intent-based parentage.’

‘The couple not only evidenced their mutual intent to conceive and raise the child, but they also participated jointly in the process of creating a new life,’ the decision said.

Helen Casale, a fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, who filed an amicus brief in Glover v. Junior, applauded the decision she referred to as a ‘hot button’ issue, and believes it will have an immediate impact on her other LGBT clients. 

Glover is distraught by the court’s decision.

She said: ‘ To say that someone can give money towards IVF and administer shots is enough to show intent — my mom can make a claim.

‘My mom was at the majority of my doctors appointments, majority of my son’s pediatrician appointments. My mom has done more.’

Glover has asked Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court to overturn the earlier ruling.  

If that fails, custody hearings will begin. 

Junior has contested Glover’s claims she is absent, saying she’s only seen her son in a sonogram and that she’s deeply unhappy to be missing the first moments of his life