Legal Opinion · Dissent

D.M.T. v. T.M.H.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided November 7, 2013No. SC12-261Published

1DissentPolston, C.J.

Unlike the majority, I do not believe that sections 742.14 and 742.13(2), Florida Statutes, violate T.M.H.’s constitutional rights to due process, privacy, and equal protection. Instead, contract law, common law, Florida statutory law, and the United States and Florida Constitutions all provide that T.M.H. does not have parental rights with respect to the child born to D.M.T. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

I refer to the parties in this case using the birth mother’s initials, D.M.T., and the egg donor’s initials, T.M.H. The majority refers to T.M.H. as the biological mother, but the term…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Troxel v. GranvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Snyder v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  3. Lehr v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Hollingsworth v. PerrySupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  5. Michael H. v. Gerald D.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API