Court: Same-sex couples don't have to notify a sperm donor when moving to formally adopt a child they had with him

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that two women seeking to formally adopt the son one of them bore with the help of a sperm donor don't have to give him a chance to object to legally adopt the baby.

The ruling at first might seem nonsensical, since the women are married and were married at the time of their son's birth last year, and both are listed as parents on his birth certificate, so why bother with adoption?

But as the court noted, that's only if the couple never leaves Massachusetts - The women sought the formal adoption "as a means of ensuring recognition of their parentage when they travel outside the Commonwealth, or in the event of their relocation to a State where same-sex marriage is not recognized."

When the Middlesex County couple, identified in the ruling only by their initials, filed their adoption request without notifying the sperm donor, a probate judge temporarily denied their ruling to ask a higher court what to do, because the women knew who the sperm donor was and the judge was unsure whether the Massachusetts adoption law required notification of an actual biological parent of the child.

The state's highest court today told the judge: Grant the adoption. The justices wrote:

Because [the law], does not include the category of "sperm donor" among those from whom consent is required as a prerequisite to adoption, under the plain language of the statute, no notice to a sperm donor is required.