K.M. v. E.G.

Supreme Court of California · 2005 · Family Law

Family LawParentageAssisted ReproductionUPAparentageovum donoregg donorlesbian partners

Facts

K.M. and E.G. were lesbian partners who lived together and were registered domestic partners. Because E.G. was unable to produce sufficient ova for in vitro fertilization, K.M. provided her ova, which were fertilized and implanted in E.G., resulting in the birth of twins. E.G. contended K.M. had donated the ova under written forms waiving any parental claim, while K.M. contended she provided the ova so the couple could raise children together. It was undisputed that the couple intended to bring the children into their joint home and raise them there.

Issue

Whether a woman who provides ova to her lesbian partner so that the partner can bear children through in vitro fertilization is a parent of those children. More specifically, the question was whether Family Code section 7613(b), which treats a semen donor as not being the natural father in certain artificial insemination circumstances, applies to exclude the ovum provider from parentage.

Rule

Family Code section 7613(b) does not apply when a woman provides her ova to impregnate her lesbian partner in order to produce children who will be raised in their joint home. In that circumstance, the ovum provider's genetic relationship is evidence of a mother-child relationship under the UPA, and the birth mother's gestation and childbirth are also evidence of a mother-child relationship; therefore both women are the children's parents.

🔒

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.

Nina Lopez and Tara Kim lived together in Oakland and planned to have a child. Because Tara could not produce viable eggs, Nina underwent egg retrieval, the embryos were created with donor sperm, and Tara gave birth to a son whom both women expected to raise in their shared home.

Under the governing rule, which statement is most accurate about Nina's legal status?

Explanation. The majority held that when one woman provides ova to her lesbian partner so the partner can bear children who will be raised in their joint home, Family Code section 7613(b) does not apply to exclude the ovum provider. Under the UPA, the ovum provider's genetic relationship is evidence of maternity, and the birth mother's gestation and childbirth are also evidence of maternity, so both women are parents. (Derived from K.M. v. E.G. (n.d.).)