It happens every day in America in cases of children who are either born to a legally married couple, but that couple uses a surrogate or a sperm donor - in which case, either only one or even none of the legal parents are the biological parents.
“It happens every day in America in cases of children who are either born to a legally married couple, but that couple uses a surrogate or a sperm donor - in which case, either only one or even none of the legal parents are the biological parents”
Dating myself, but “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature” comes to mind.
Colonel, USAFR
Exactly. That's what has led society to eventually accept "same-sex" marriage and to cases like this one.
First, there were age-old laws on the books recognizing the husband as the legal father of any child born to the woman married to him. (That's why there was at least one case of a man ordered to pay child support for a child his ex-wife conceived through an adulterous affair.)
Then, heterosexual couples started using donors and surrogates. The names of the husband and wife (not the donor or surrogate) are put onto the birth certificate. That's why courts have ruled that "same-sex" couples can have both their names on the birth certificates.
And, so now here's this case. Probably, there will be many more to follow.