ELISA B. V. SUPERIOR COURT
37 Cal.4th 108 (2005)
NATURE OF THE CASE: The superior court ordered Elisa B., (D), former same-sex partner to
support the twins of real party in interest, the birth mother. The Court of Appeal directed
the superior court to vacate its decision, concluding that the former partner was not a
parent of the twins within the meaning of the Uniform Parentage Act, Cal. Fam. Code 7600
et seq. The birth mother, Emily B. (P) petitioned for review.
FACTS: P and D entered into a lesbian relationship in 1993. They introduced each other to
friends as their 'partner,' exchanged rings, opened a joint bank account, and believed they
were in a committed relationship. They both wished to give birth. Because D earned more than
twice as much money as P, they decided that P 'would be the stay-at-home mother' and D'
would be the primary breadwinner for the family.' At a sperm bank, they chose a donor they
both would use so the children would 'be biological brothers and sisters.' Both become
pregnant. They attended child birth classes together so that each could act as a 'coach' for
the other during birth, including cutting the children's umbilical cords. D gave birth to
Chance in November 1997, and P gave birth to Ry and Kaia prematurely in March 1998. Ry had
medical problems; he suffered from Down's syndrome, and required heart surgery. They jointly
selected the children's names, joining their surnames with a hyphen to form the children's
surname. They each breast fed all of the children. D claimed all three children as her
dependents on her tax returns and obtained a life insurance policy on herself naming D as
the beneficiary so that if 'anything happened' to her, all three children would be 'cared
for.' D believed the children would be considered both of their children. D treated all of
the children as hers and told a prospective employer that she had triplets. P and D
identified themselves as coparents of Ry at an organization arranging care for his Down's
syndrome. They consulted an attorney regarding adopting 'each other's child,' but never did
so. Nor did they register as domestic partners or execute a written agreement concerning the
children. They separated in November 1999. D promised to support P and the twins 'as much as
I possibly could' and initially paid the mortgage payments of approximately $1,500 per month
on the house in which D and the twins continued to live, as well as other expenses. D
applied for aid. After the house was sold, D paid P $1,000 a month. In early 2001, D stated
she lost her position as a full-time employee and told P she no longer could support her and
the twins. At the time of trial, D was earning $95,000 a year. The court found that D was
obligated to support the twins under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. D was subsequently
ordered to pay child support in the amount of $907.50 per child for a total of $1815 per
month. D petitioned for a writ of mandate, and the court directed the superior court to
vacate its order and dismiss the action, concluding that D had no obligation to pay child
support because she was not a parent of the twins within the meaning of the Uniform
Parentage Act. This appeal resulted.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment