Linsay Lorine Gatsby, aka Linsay Lorine Wallace v. Kylee Diane Gatsby

Boise, Idaho family law lawyers represented Petitioner and Respondent seeking child custody.



Linsay and Kylee Gatsby married in June 2015. They later decided Kylee would attempt

to conceive a child through artificial insemination, using semen donated by a mutual friend. They

elected to attempt this procedure on their own, without using the services of a physician.

Additionally, without consulting an attorney, Linsay, Kylee, and the semen donor signed a n

artificial insemination agreement Linsay found online, listing the friend as "donor” and both

Linsay and Kylee as the "recipient.” The agreement included acknowledgements that the recipient

intended to become pregnant and to have rights to the child, and that the donor would not have

parental rights or obligations to the child. Linsay performed the insemination procedure on Kylee

in their home. After several attempts, Kylee became pregnant. On October 29, 2016, Kylee gave

birth to the child.1 It is undisputed that Kylee is the child's biological mother. Linsay was present

at the birth. The birth certificate worksheet, which Kylee signed, designates Kylee as "mother,”

and the word "father” on the form is crossed out and "mother” written by hand in its place to also

identify Linsay as the child's mother. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare issued a

Certificate of Live Birth identifying both Kylee and Linsay as the child's mothers. The child

resided with Linsay and Kylee, who held themselves out as the child's parents. Both Kylee and

Linsay shared in caregiving, but Kylee was the child's primary caregiver.



The following summer the couple had an argument. Both Linsay and Kylee had been

drinking, and Kylee became drunk. Kylee shoved Linsay off a bed. Then Linsay punched Kylee,

breaking her nose. The child was in the bedroom during the fight, and Linsay's two children from

a prior relationship were also in the home. Kylee was arrested and subsequently pleaded guilty to

domestic battery, a misdemeanor. Kylee had also committed an act of domestic violence years

earlier. On July 5, 2017, a No Contact Order ("NCO”) was issued, which prohibited Kylee from

seeing the child except at daycare. On August 29, 2017, Linsay filed for divorce. Kylee filed an

Answer and Counterclaim, asserting that Linsay had "no legal claim or standing to any custody or

visitation” to the minor child.



Due to the NCO, Linsay had sole custody of the child from Kylee's arrest on July 3, 2017,

until December 27, 2017, when the magistrate court issued a Temporary Order giving Kylee and

Linsay equal custody. In the meantime, Kylee had successfully participated in a Domestic

Violence Offender Intervention/Treatment class. After sharing custody for nearly one year, on

November 15, 2018, the magistrate court granted sole custody of the child to Kylee. The magistrate

court found that Linsay was not the child's legal parent, Linsay had established no third-party

rights, and, in the alternative, it was not in the child's best interest for the court to award Linsay

custody or visitation rights as a third party based on the evidence in the record.

Regarding Kylee's rights to custody, the magistrate court found "Kylee is the natural,

biological parent of [the child]. Therefore, Kylee has a fundamental constitutional and statutory

right to the custody, care, and control of [the child].” Regarding Linsay's rights to custody, the

magistrate stated:



A rebuttable presumption exists that Linsay is [the child's] parent due to the parties

being married when [the child] was born. Alber v. Alber, 93 Idaho 755, 760-61, 472

P.2d 321, 326- 27 (1970). The presumption may be overcome by clear and

convincing evidence. Id. The parties agree that Linsay is not [the child's] biological

parent. The parties agree that [the child's] biological parents are Kylee and [the

semen donor]. The marriage presumption of parentage of a child born during the

marriage has been overcome by clear and convincing evidence that Linsay is not

[the child's] parent.



Linsay is not a legal parent through other legal avenues due to her failure to utilize

legal proceedings to declare her a parent. Linsay did not sign or properly file a

voluntary acknowledgment of paternity affidavit pursuant to Idaho Code § 7-1106.

Had Linsay done so, she would have been declared a legal parent. Linsay did not

adopt [the child] pursuant to Idaho Code § 16-1501 et seq. Had Linsay done so, she

would have been a legal parent. Linsay did not comply with the Artificial

Insemination Act and cannot receive the benefit. Linsay did not sign or file a

consent form pursuant to Idaho Code § 39-5403. Had Linsay done so, she would

have been a legal parent. Linsay does not get the benefit of the law that she did not

invoke and follow.



In this case, Kylee is the natural, biological parent of [the child]. Therefore, Kylee

has a fundamental constitutional and statutory right to the custody, care, and control

of [the child].



Further, the magistrate court found Linsay had no grounds as a third party to seek custody

or visitation rights. In the alternative, the magistrate found that it was not in the child's best interest

to award custody or visitation rights to Linsay as a third party. Among the magistrate's factual

findings were the following: that the child had bonded with both Linsay and Kylee; that both

sought sole custody in vengeance against the other; that neither was able to control the conflict

with the other for the child's sake; that Linsay prioritized her own needs over those of the child;

and that "both parties have character flaws that negatively affect them for parenthood.” The

magistrate court found that Linsay had been dishonest and perjured herself during her trial

testimony, and concluded that Kylee's interpersonal relationships were more stable than Linsay's.

Linsay filed a Notice of Appeal, and the district court affirmed the magistrate court's

decisions. Linsay now appeals to this Court.

For the forgoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the district court. We further hold that

the AIA—the controlling statute in this case—is constitutional because it can be read in a gender-

neutral manner that applies equally to same-sex couples. The AIA provides the same legal

protections and places the same legal duties on Linsay as it would on a similarly situated male

spouse. Thus, we affirm the district court’s ruling upholding the magistrate court’s decision that

Linsay does not have parental rights to the child because she did not comply with the AIA.

Additionally, we affirm the district court’s determination that the magistrate court did not err in

concluding that awarding sole custody to Kylee was in the child’s best interest.

Attorney fees will not be awarded, but Kylee is entitled to costs as a matter of course

pursuant to Idaho Appellate Rule 40(a).