Whether by self-help or in vitro fertilization (IVF), the path to parenthood, particularly for same-sex couples, can be complicated. Historically, if and when a same-sex couple terminated its relationship, unless a person could present a biological connection to their child(ren), the party without a biological connection to the child(ren) could find themselves kicked to the curb not only by their partner, but by a domestic relations court. The times appear to be changing, albeit slowly, as to standing and parental rights.

In Texas, in the recent case of In re D.A.A.-B., 2022 WL 3758574 (Tex. App. El Paso 2002, no pet. history), the El Paso Court of Appeals takes a bold step forward in a case involving a same-sex couple. The parties, Andrea and Cristina, were legally married in New Mexico in 2013 (prior to Obergefell). A family friend, Luis, provided sperm. In lieu of using formal IVF through a medical professional, the women instead purchased an insemination kit, using self-help to impregnate Andrea, with Cristina actively involved in the process. When the child was born, Cristina was there. Although Andrea informed the hospital staff that she and Cristina were both parents, it was not yet legal for Cristina to be listed on the child's birth certificate, as same-sex marriage was not yet recognized in Texas. Prior to their separation in 2015, Andrea and Cristina both parented the child, sharing child rearing duties and responsibilities. When they separated, Cristina remained in the family home and Andrea moved out. Cristina suffered from depression, and further, was diagnosed with cancer, necessitating chemotherapy treatment.

While Andrea was aware of Cristina's physical and mental condition, Andrea nonetheless assured Cristina via text messages that both would always remain the child's parents and have the right to spend time with the child. The parties worked out a schedule allowing for frequent contact. Cristina provided nominal child support, and further, maintained dependent health coverage for the child. In April 2016, Andrea filed, pro se, for divorce. Subsequently claiming "confusion", the Decree stated that there were no children of the marriage. There were no orders for custody, support or access. The parties agreed to maintain the possession schedule orally agreed to prior to the decree. Cristina never adopted the child, but there were times that she had possession of the child more than 50% of the time. The informal access schedule was successful until September, 2017, when the parties began to have disagreements. Andrea unilaterally decided to stop allowing Cristina to have access to the child, citing concern for Cristina's mental and physical health. Although Cristina was denied access, she continued to provide support payments to Andrea, and further, continued to maintain dependent health coverage for the child.