Elisa B. v. Superior Court
117 P.3d 660, 37 Cal. 4th 108, 33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 46 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who is not biologically related to a child may be deemed a legal parent under the Uniform Parentage Act if they receive the child into their home and openly hold the child out as their own, particularly when they actively participated in the child's conception with the intent to coparent.
Facts:
- Elisa B. and Emily B. entered into a committed lesbian relationship in 1993 and decided to raise children together.
- They agreed Elisa would be the primary financial provider while Emily would be a stay-at-home mother.
- They selected a sperm donor that both would use so their children would be biological siblings.
- Elisa gave birth to a son, Chance, in November 1997.
- Elisa actively participated in Emily's insemination process, which resulted in the birth of twins, Ry and Kaia, in March 1998.
- Elisa received the twins into her home, gave them her hyphenated surname, claimed them as dependents on tax returns, breast-fed them, and told others she had triplets.
- Elisa and Emily separated in November 1999, after which Elisa initially provided financial support for Emily and the twins.
- In early 2001, Elisa informed Emily she could no longer provide financial support.
Procedural Posture:
- The El Dorado County District Attorney filed a complaint in superior court (trial court) to establish Elisa B. as a parent of the twins and to obtain a child support order.
- The superior court found Elisa B. was a parent and ordered her to pay child support.
- Elisa B., as petitioner, sought a writ of mandate from the Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeal granted the writ, ordering the superior court to vacate its child support order and dismiss the action.
- The California Supreme Court granted review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a woman who is not biologically related to children born to her lesbian partner have a legal duty to support them as a parent under the Uniform Parentage Act, when she agreed to raise the children, supported their conception through artificial insemination, and held them out as her own?
Opinions:
Majority - Moreno, J.
Yes. A woman who agrees to raise children with her lesbian partner, supports her partner’s artificial insemination, and holds the resulting children out as her own is the children's parent under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) and has a support obligation. The UPA's provisions for establishing a father-child relationship, specifically the 'presumed father' status under section 7611(d), apply to determine a mother-child relationship 'insofar as practicable.' Elisa met this standard because she received the twins into her home and openly held them out as her natural children. The court's prior statement in Johnson v. Calvert that a child can have 'only one natural mother' is inapplicable here because that case involved three competing parents, not a situation where a child could have two mothers and no father. Relying on In re Nicholas H., the court reasons that 'natural' parentage is not strictly biological and the presumption of parentage should not be rebutted in this case because doing so would leave the children with only one parent, shift the financial burden to the state, and contradict Elisa's intentional actions to create and raise this family.
Concurring - Kennard, J.
Yes. The majority's outcome is a 'foregone conclusion' based on the court's recent precedent in In re Nicholas H. That case established that a nonbiological father can be a 'presumed' father under section 7611(d) if he receives a child into his home and holds the child out as his own. By parity of reasoning, a nonbiological woman can become a presumed mother. Elisa clearly met these criteria. This is not an 'appropriate action' to rebut the presumption of motherhood, as doing so would leave the twins with only one source of parental support, contrary to public policy. The same legal principles must apply equally regardless of gender.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the definition of 'parent' under California's Uniform Parentage Act, establishing a conduct-based path to parentage for non-biological, same-sex partners. By applying the 'presumed father' statute (§ 7611(d)) to women, the court affirmed that legal parentage can be established through intent and action, not just biology or formal adoption. This ruling provides crucial legal protection and financial security for children in non-traditional families, ensuring they are entitled to support from both individuals who brought them into the world and acted as their parents. The decision effectively prevents a partner in such a relationship from disclaiming parental responsibilities after a separation.
