Ohio's Top Court Denies Parental Rights to Unmarried Same-Sex Mother

In In re L.E.S., the court confronted a gap that reaches many LGBTQ+ families: Ohio's statute confirming parentage for a spouse whose partner conceives through artificial insemination is written in terms of marriage. The non-biological mother argued that, because the couple could not or did not marry, the law should be read to protect her intended parental role as it would a husband's.

The majority declined to rewrite the statute, holding that access to the non-spousal artificial-insemination provision turns on marital status and that courts may not retroactively supply a marriage that never existed. Under Obergefell v. Hodges, the court noted, married same-sex couples receive the same statutory benefits as any married couple, but that equality does not automatically extend to couples who were unmarried at the relevant time.

The decision underscores why family-law advocates urge same-sex parents to secure their relationships through confirmatory or second-parent adoption or a court parentage judgment rather than relying on statutes drafted around marriage. Such judgments are entitled to recognition in every state, offering more durable protection than a presumption tied to marital status.

The ruling is a setback in a body of state law that has otherwise trended toward recognizing intent-based and functional parentage for LGBTQ+ families, and it may spur legislative efforts in Ohio to modernize the parentage code.