117 P.3d 660 (Cal. 2005)
Elisa B. and Emily B. entered into a lesbian relationship in 1993 and began living together six months later.1 They introduced each other to friends as their partner, exchanged rings, opened a joint bank account, and believed they were in a committed relationship.2 They discussed having children and decided that they both wished to give birth, with Emily as the stay-at-home mother and Elisa as the primary breadwinner because Elisa earned more than twice as much money as Emily.3
They chose a donor at a sperm bank so the children would be biological brothers and sisters.4 Elisa became pregnant in February 1997 and gave birth to Chance in November 1997.5 Emily began the insemination process in June of 1997 and became pregnant in August 1997, giving birth prematurely in March 1998 to twins Ry and Kaia.6 Ry had medical problems including Down’s syndrome and required heart surgery.7 Elisa was present when Emily was inseminated and picked up additional sperm to inseminate Emily at their home.8
They jointly selected the children’s names, joining their surnames with a hyphen.9 They each breast-fed all of the children.10 Elisa claimed all three children as her dependents on her tax returns and obtained a life insurance policy on herself naming Emily as the beneficiary.11 Elisa’s parents referred to the twins as their grandchildren, and her sister referred to Elisa as the twins’ mother.12 Elisa treated all of the children as hers and told a prospective employer that she had triplets.13 Elisa and Emily identified themselves as coparents of Ry at an organization arranging care for his Down’s syndrome.14
Elisa and Emily separated in November 1999.15 Elisa promised to support Emily and the twins as much as she possibly could and initially paid the mortgage payments of approximately $1,500 per month on the house in which Emily and the twins continued to live, as well as other expenses.16 When they sold the house and Emily and the twins moved into an apartment in November 2000, Elisa paid Emily $1,000 a month.17 In early 2001, Elisa stated she lost her position as a full-time employee and told Emily she no longer could support her and the twins.18 At the time of trial, Elisa was earning $95,000 a year.19 Emily applied for aid.20
On June 7, 2001, the El Dorado County District Attorney filed a complaint in superior court to establish that Elisa B. is a parent of two-year-old twins Kaia B. and Ry B., who were born to Emily B., and to order Elisa to pay child support.21 After a hearing, the superior court rendered a written decision on July 11, 2002, ordering Elisa to pay child support in the amount of $907.50 per child for a total of $1815 per month.22 Elisa petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate, and the court directed the superior court to vacate its order and dismiss the action.23 The Supreme Court granted review.24
Whether a woman who agreed to raise children with her lesbian partner, supported her partner’s artificial insemination using an anonymous donor, and received the resulting twin children into her home and held them out as her own is the children’s parent under the Uniform Parentage Act?25
The Uniform Parentage Act (Fam. Code, § 7600 et seq.) provides that the parent and child relationship extends equally to every child and every parent regardless of marital status.26 Section 7650 directs that provisions applicable to the father and child relationship apply to determine the mother and child relationship insofar as practicable.27 Under section 7611, subdivision (d), a man is presumed the natural father if he receives the child into his home and openly holds the child out as his natural child.28 This presumption applies equally to women seeking presumed mother status.29 The presumption may be rebutted in an appropriate action by clear and convincing evidence that the presumed parent is not the biological parent.30 Rebuttal is inappropriate where there is no competing claim to parentage and rebuttal would leave the child with fewer than two parents for emotional and financial support.31
Yes. Upon the birth of the twins, Elisa received them into her home and held them out as her natural children by jointly selecting hyphenated surnames combining her and Emily's names for all three children, breast-feeding every child including the twins, claiming all three as dependents on her tax returns, telling a prospective employer that she had triplets, and identifying herself and Emily as coparents when arranging care for Ry's Down's syndrome. Because no competing maternal claim existed from any other person, rebutting the presumption would leave the twins with only one parent and shift their financial support to the county, a result the court deems inappropriate under the principles applied in Nicholas H. and Salvador M.32
Elisa is the children’s parent under the Uniform Parentage Act.33
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Kennard concurred separately to emphasize that this court’s recent decision in In re Nicholas H. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 56, which holds that a nonbiological father may nonetheless meet the statutory definition of a presumed father, makes the majority’s outcome in this case a foregone conclusion when the same rule is applied to mothers.34 She noted that Emily and Elisa planned the pregnancies together using the same donor so their offspring would be genetically related, and that Elisa received the twins into the home and held them out as her own.35
Rebutting the presumption would improperly leave the children with only one source of support from Emily, who had been receiving public assistance.36
Whether that woman has an obligation to support the children?37
A person who qualifies as a presumed parent under the Uniform Parentage Act incurs the legal obligation to support the child.38 The Legislature has declared a compelling state interest in establishing parentage to secure child support and equal access to benefits.39 The Legislature recognized the value of two parents rather than one as sources of financial support, especially to prevent the burden from falling on the public.40
Yes. Because Elisa qualifies as a presumed parent under section 7611, subdivision (d), she bears the obligation to support the twins.41 The county brought the action precisely to shift the support burden from public assistance back to the second parent who had participated in bringing the children into the world and raising them.42
Elisa has an obligation to support the children.43
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Kennard agreed that the statutory presumption of parenthood carries with it the benefits and responsibilities of parenthood, including the duty of support.44 She observed that if a man in Elisa’s position would be required to pay support under Nicholas H., the same legal principles apply with equal force to a woman.45 Justice Kennard stressed that young Ry and Kaia have a right to support from both parents, and that permitting rebuttal of the presumption would leave the twins with the support of only one parent while shifting the burden to county taxpayers.46