John A. v. Buzzanca
61 Cal. App. 4th 1410, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1782, 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 280 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a married couple consents to and initiates a medical procedure that results in the birth of a child, they are the child's lawful parents, regardless of whether they have a biological relationship to the child. Parental status is established by the intent to procreate and cause the child's birth through such a procedure.
Facts:
- Luanne and John Buzzanca, a married couple, agreed to have an embryo created using an anonymous egg and sperm donor.
- They entered into an oral agreement with a surrogate to have the embryo implanted in her and for her to carry the child to term for them.
- The embryo was implanted in the surrogate on August 13, 1994.
- On August 25, 1994, Luanne and John signed a written contract memorializing their surrogacy agreement.
- During the surrogate's pregnancy, Luanne and John separated and initiated divorce proceedings.
- After the child, Jaycee, was born, the surrogate who gave birth made no claim to be the parent.
- Luanne sought to be declared Jaycee's mother, while John disclaimed any parental responsibility, financial or otherwise.
Procedural Posture:
- John Buzzanca filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the trial court, alleging no children.
- Luanne Buzzanca filed a response, stating the parties were expecting a child via a surrogate contract.
- After Jaycee's birth, Luanne filed a petition to establish her maternity, which was consolidated with the dissolution case.
- The trial court accepted a stipulation that the surrogate and her husband were not the biological parents.
- The trial court entered a judgment declaring that Jaycee had no lawful parents because Luanne had no genetic or gestational link and John, therefore, could not be the father.
- The trial court terminated John's temporary child support obligation.
- Luanne Buzzanca appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are the intended parents in a gestational surrogacy arrangement, who have no genetic relationship to the child, the child's lawful parents?
Opinions:
Majority - Sills, P. J.
Yes. A husband and wife who consent to a surrogacy arrangement resulting in the birth of a child are the child's lawful parents, regardless of any biological connection. The court reasoned by analogy to California's artificial insemination statute (Family Code § 7613), which provides that a husband who consents to his wife's insemination with donor sperm is the child's legal father. The court held that this principle should apply with equal force to both intended parents in a surrogacy context, as in both situations, a child is procreated because a medical procedure was initiated and consented to by the intended parents. The court emphasized that the couple's consent and actions, which caused the child's existence, are the determinative factors in establishing legal parentage. Declaring otherwise would create a legal orphan, a result contrary to the strong public policy of establishing parentage for all children to ensure their support and welfare.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing the principle of 'intent-based' parenthood in cases of assisted reproduction where the intended parents have no biological link to the child. It extends the logic of earlier cases, which balanced competing biological claims, to a situation with no biological claims from the intended parents. The court's reliance on the artificial insemination statute created a powerful precedent for determining parentage based on the parties' causative acts and intent, rather than solely on genetics or gestation. This ruling provides crucial legal protection for children born through such arrangements, ensuring they are not left without legal parents and financial support.
Unlock the full brief for John A. v. Buzzanca