In re Marriage of Buzzanca

Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three · 1998 · Family Law

Family LawParentageSurrogacyArtificial ReproductionChild Supportsurrogacygestational carrierintended parents

Facts

John and Luanne Buzzanca, while married, agreed to have an embryo genetically unrelated to either of them implanted in a surrogate so that she would carry and give birth to a child for them. After fertilization, implantation, and pregnancy, the couple separated, and Jaycee was born. The surrogate and her husband made no claim to the child, and the trial court accepted a stipulation that they were not the biological parents. The trial court then ruled that Jaycee had no lawful parents because Luanne neither contributed the egg nor gave birth, and John contributed no sperm.

Issue

When a married couple consents to and initiates a gestational surrogacy arrangement using an embryo genetically unrelated to both of them, are they the child's lawful parents under California parentage law? More specifically, can intended parenthood be established by consent to the medical procedure and intent to parent, rather than only by genetics or gestation?

Rule

Under California parentage law, when a married couple consents to and causes a child to be conceived and born through medically assisted reproduction, they may be treated as the child's lawful parents even without any biological tie. By parity of reasoning from Family Code section 7613 and Johnson v. Calvert, consent to the reproductive procedure and intent to parent establish legal parenthood for both intended spouses, and a parent cannot avoid the resulting support obligation by private agreement.

🔒

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.

While married in San Diego, Nora Patel and Evan Brooks arranged for an embryo created from anonymous egg and sperm donors to be implanted in a gestational carrier. The carrier gave birth, then disclaimed any parental role. Evan later argued he was not a parent because he had no genetic connection to the child.

Under the majority's reasoning, is Evan the child's lawful father?

Explanation. The majority held that when a married couple consents to and initiates assisted reproduction that results in a child's birth, that consent and intent to parent can establish legal parenthood even without any biological connection. By parity of reasoning from the artificial insemination statute, the husband is treated as the lawful father because he was a prime mover in bringing the child into existence.