Elisa B. v. Superior Court

Supreme Court of California · 2005 · Family Law

117 P.3d 660 (2005)

Updated August 1, 2026

Family Lawsame-sex parentagesupportUniform Parentage ActFamily Code section 7611(d)Family Code section 7650presumed parentpresumed mother

Facts

Elisa and Emily were in a committed lesbian relationship, lived together, and jointly decided to have children, with Emily serving as stay-at-home parent and Elisa as primary breadwinner. Elisa actively participated in Emily's artificial insemination with an anonymous donor, intending that they would raise the resulting children together as coparents. After Emily gave birth to twins, Elisa lived with them, helped name them, gave them a shared hyphenated surname with the other child in the family, breast fed them, claimed them as dependents, and represented them to others as her children. After the relationship ended, Elisa initially provided support but later stopped, and the county sought child support.

Issue

Can a woman who is not biologically related to children born to her lesbian partner nevertheless be treated as their parent under the Uniform Parentage Act and required to support them? More specifically, can she qualify as a presumed mother under Family Code section 7611(d), as applied through section 7650, when she received the children into her home and openly held them out as her natural children?

Rule

Under the Uniform Parentage Act, and through Family Code section 7650's directive to apply father-child provisions to mother-child relationships insofar as practicable, a woman may be a presumed mother under Family Code section 7611(d) if she receives the child into her home and openly holds the child out as her natural child. In an appropriate action, that presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, but rebuttal is not appropriate where the nonbiological woman actively participated in causing the child to be conceived with the understanding she would raise the child as her own, accepted parental rights and obligations after birth, and no competing claim to second parentage exists.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sacramento, Dana Ortiz and Lena Park were in a committed relationship when they jointly chose anonymous-donor insemination so Lena could give birth. Before conception, Dana attended clinic visits, paid for the donor samples, and the couple agreed they would raise the child together. After the child was born, Dana lived with the child for three years, introduced the child in public as her daughter, and listed the child as her dependent before the relationship ended.

If the county later seeks child support from Dana, which is the strongest argument that Dana is a legal parent under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority held that, through section 7650, section 7611(d)'s presumed-parent standard applies to maternity when practicable. A nonbiological woman may be a presumed mother if she receives the child into her home and openly holds the child out as her natural child. The presumption should not be rebutted in an action where she helped cause conception, agreed to raise the child, accepted parental rights and obligations, and no competing second-parent claim exists.