Overview of the Case
A court in Thailand entered a judgment that adjudicated respondent Harlow H. to be the biological father of triplets conceived by gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT) and imposed child support obligations on him.Thereafter, the mother, Wipaporn T., a/k/a Chirathip T., petitioned the Circuit Court of Cook County to, inter alia, recognize and enroll the Thai judgment under the principles of comity.
Harlow moved to dismiss the petition, arguing the Thai judgment was not entitled to comity because it was contrary to Illinois public policy as expressed in a statutory provision addressing sperm donors and artificial insemination. The circuit court denied Harlow’s motion to dismiss. Thereafter, Harlow filed an answer and affirmative defenses, asserting, inter alia, that comity could not be extended to the Thai judgment because Wipaporn obtained it by fraud and Harlow was denied a full and fair hearing in Thailand. Pursuant to Wipaporn’s motion, the circuit court struck and dismissed Harlow’s answer with prejudice and enrolled the Thai judgment.
Table of Contents
Harlow’s Defense Under the Parentage Act
Harlow argued that he never married Wipaporn and the Parentage Act prevented her from making a sperm donor responsible for support. However, the Thai court and this Court, found that Harlow was more than a sperm donor. Although he was married to a woman in the United States, he engaged in a sexual relationship with Wipaporn.
Evidence Presented: Consent and DNA
The court’s determination that Harlow was more than a sperm donor relied on several critical pieces of evidence:
- Wedding Ceremony: Harlow and Wipaporn engaged in a wedding ceremony in 2004, demonstrating a relationship beyond that of donor and recipient.
- Written Consent Documentation: Harlow signed formal documentation explicitly consenting to the GIFT procedure, allowing the doctor to use his sperm for treatment. These consent forms indicated his intention to participate in creating a child, not merely donating genetic material.
- DNA Confirmation: Genetic testing conclusively established Harlow as the biological father of the triplets, confirming the biological relationship in addition to his documented intent.
Each of these factors proved crucial in distinguishing Harlow’s role from that of an anonymous donor who would typically be protected from support obligations under the Parentage Act.
Application of Illinois Parentage Law and Comity
The Circuit Court here found that he was more than a sperm donor and that the Illinois Parentage Act of 2015 (750 ILCS 46/) did not intend to allow biological fathers to skirt their responsibilities in such an instance. This interpretation remains consistent with how courts apply the Act today, particularly Section 703 which addresses assisted reproduction consent.
The Thai court had reviewed the Parentage Act, and Harlow was represented there by counsel. The court here found that Wipaporn did not obtain her judgment in another country by fraud.
Doctrine of Comity: Legal Precedents and Application
This court has defined the doctrine of comity as a ” ‘recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to the international duty and convenience and to the rights of its own citizens who are under the protection of its laws.’ ” In re Marriage of Kohl, 334 Ill. App. 3d 867, 880-81 (2002) (quoting Clubb v. Clubb, 402 Ill. 390, 399-400 (1949)). Under the doctrine of comity, courts may defer to the laws or interests of a foreign country and decline to exercise jurisdiction that is otherwise properly asserted.
Generally, the decision to grant or deny comity by a trial court will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Kohl, 334 Ill. App. 3d at 881; In re Marriage of Pearson, 236 Ill. App. 3d 337, 349 (1992) (an abuse of discretion occurs when no reasonable person would adopt the view taken by the trial court). ¶ 18 Recognition of a foreign judgment may be withheld where it is contrary to the public policy of the state where the recognition is sought, the country in which the decree was rendered does not recognize American decrees, or the judgment was obtained in bad faith, by fraud or by taking advantage of the foreign law. Hager v. Hager, 1 Ill. App. 3d 1047, 1051 (1971).
Factors Considered in Recognizing Foreign Judgments
Illinois courts have also considered whether the rendering court had jurisdiction over the person and the No. 1-13-3703 – 7 – subject matter, and whether the party was given timely notice and an opportunity to present a defense. In re Marriage of Murugesh, 2013 IL App (3d) 110228, ¶ 41; In re Marriage of Silvestri-Gagliardoni, 186 Ill. App. 3d 46, 51 (1989). Courts considering whether to give comity to a foreign judgment should also consider whether the foreign court “can do complete justice to those affected by the decree.” Codo, Bonds, Zumstein & Konzelman, P.C. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 148 Ill. App. 3d 698, 703 (1986).
Conclusion: Illinois Court Upholds Thai Judgment
Our Appellate Court based its review on Illinois public policy and the Illinois Parentage Act of 2015, concluding that the Thai judgment was not contrary to Illinois public policy. Thus, the circuit court neither erred by denying Harlow’s motion to dismiss Wipaporn’s petition nor abused its discretion by extending comity to the Thai judgment.
This case represents a significant application of both international comity principles and Illinois parentage law. It established that individuals cannot evade parental responsibilities merely by claiming donor status when their actions indicate greater involvement. The principles established here continue to guide Illinois courts in distinguishing between protected donors and legal parents in assisted reproduction cases.
In the years since this ruling, Illinois courts have continued to refine how they handle ART-related disputes, developing frameworks like the Szafranski balancing test while maintaining the core principle that documented intentions and actions matter more than technical designations when determining parental obligations.
Harlow is the father of triplets!
Ongoing Legal Significance
This 2017 case continues to serve as an important precedent in Illinois ART jurisprudence. It established key principles that courts still apply when determining parental obligations in assisted reproduction cases:
- The distinction between a “mere donor” and an active participant in assisted reproduction
- The importance of written consent and documentation in establishing intentions
- The recognition of foreign judgments in family law under principles of comity
More recent cases, including In re Marriage of Katsap (2022 IL App 2d 210368) and the landmark Szafranski v. Dunstonbalancing test, have built upon these principles while addressing other aspects of ART disputes. For an updated and comprehensive view of current Illinois law in this area, see our recent article on Understanding Embryo Custody and Parentage Disputes in Illinois Divorce.
Visit our Chicago Family Law Attorneys services page to learn more
Practical Guidelines for ART Participants
This case highlights important considerations for anyone involved in assisted reproduction:
For Sperm/Egg Donors:
- Be clear about your intentions and role in any ART procedure
- Ensure all agreements are properly documented and legally reviewed
- Understand that participation beyond donation may create legal obligations
- Consult with an attorney experienced in reproductive law before proceeding
For Intended Parents:
- Document all agreements with donors or co-parents in writing
- Work with reputable fertility clinics that provide thorough consent protocols
- Understand how your relationship with a donor might affect future legal determinations
- Consider establishing clear parentage orders when possible
These precautions can help prevent disputes and ensure that all parties’ intentions are respected under Illinois law.
The legal landscape surrounding assisted reproduction, parentage rights, and international family law continues to evolve in Illinois. If you’re facing a situation involving assisted reproduction, donor agreements, or international family law matters, having experienced legal counsel is essential to protect your rights and interests.
Our family law attorneys at Anderson Boback & Marshall have extensive experience handling complex parentage cases and stay current with the latest developments in Illinois law. We can help you understand your legal options and develop a strategy tailored to your specific situation.
Schedule a Consultation Today to discuss your case with one of our experienced family law attorneys.
