Also known as: Uniform Parentage Act · 1973 Uniform Parentage Act · UPA (1973) · UPA · Uniform Parentage Act of 1973
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A model statute that establishes rules for determining the existence of a parent-child relationship. It creates presumptions of parentage arising from marriage, cohabitation, and holding out a child as one's own.
Uma Upadhyay and her spouse arranged for a gestational surrogate to carry a child conceived with donor gametes. After birth the surrogate relinquished the child and the couple took the infant home. When a probate dispute later arose over the child's status as an heir, the court applied the Uniform Parentage Act to confirm the couple's legal parentage based on the marital presumption.
Ulrike Ulrich and her partner agreed that the partner would undergo artificial insemination with anonymous donor sperm. After the twins were born Ulrike resided with them, supported them financially, and presented them to family and school officials as her own children. When a support action was filed the court held Ulrike was a legal parent under the Uniform Parentage Act because she had received the children into her home and held them out as her own.
Elisa B. and Emily B. entered into a lesbian relationship in 1993 and began living together six months later. 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 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. They chose a donor at a sperm bank so the children would be biological brothers and sisters. Elisa became pregnant in February 1997 and gave birth to Chance in November 1997. 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. Ry had medical problems including Down’s syndrome and required heart surgery. Elisa was present when Emily was inseminated and picked up additional sperm to inseminate Emily at their home. They jointly selected the children’s names, joining their surnames with a hyphen. They each breast-fed all of the children. 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. Elisa’s parents referred to the twins as their grandchildren, and her sister referred to Elisa as the twins’ mother. Elisa treated all of the children as hers and told a prospective employer that she had triplets. Elisa and Emily identified themselves as coparents of Ry at an organization arranging care for his Down’s syndrome. Elisa and Emily separated in November 1999. 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. When they sold the house and Emily and the twins moved into an apartment in November 2000, Elisa paid Emily $1,000 a month. 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. At the time of trial, Elisa was earning $95,000 a year. Emily applied for aid. 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. 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. 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. The Supreme Court granted review.
View caseUma Underwood gave birth to a child while married to Ulf Ulfsson. Years later another man sought to establish genetic paternity and displace Ulf's status. The court applied the Uniform Parentage Act marital presumption and required that any competing claim be resolved only through a formal adjudication rather than by genetic evidence alone.
In May 1976 Carole D. and Gerald D. married in Las Vegas and established a home in Playa del Rey, California. In the summer of 1978 Carole began an adulterous affair with neighbor Michael H. In September 1980 she conceived Victoria D., who was born on May 11, 1981. Gerald was listed as father on the birth certificate and has always held her out as his daughter. Soon after delivery Carole told Michael she believed he might be the father. Blood tests performed in October 1981 showed a 98.07 percent probability that Michael was Victoria's father. During the first three years of her life, Victoria remained always with Carole, but found herself within a variety of quasi-family units. In November 1982 Michael filed a filiation action in California Superior Court seeking to establish paternity and visitation rights. In March 1983 the court appointed a guardian ad litem for Victoria, who filed a cross-complaint asserting a right to maintain filial relationships with both men. In April 1984 Carole and Michael signed a stipulation acknowledging Michael as Victoria's natural father, but Carole later directed her attorneys not to file it. In June 1984 Carole reconciled with Gerald; they now reside together with Victoria and two later-born children in New York. In May 1984 Michael and Victoria sought visitation pendente lite. A court-appointed psychologist recommended sole custody with Carole and limited visitation for Michael; the Superior Court ordered such visitation. On October 19, 1984 Gerald moved for summary judgment under California Evidence Code § 621. On January 28, 1985 the Superior Court granted the motion, finding no triable issues of fact as to paternity, and denied continued visitation. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court and upheld the constitutionality of the statute in 1987. The California Supreme Court denied discretionary review. On February 29, 1988, the United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction of the present appeal.
View caseUgo Ucelli had a brief relationship with a woman who later placed their child for adoption. He had never lived with the child or provided support and had not registered with the state's putative-father registry. When he sought to block the adoption the court held that the Uniform Parentage Act did not require notice to a father whose only connection was biology.
Jessica M. was born out of wedlock on November 9, 1976. Her mother, Lorraine Robertson, married Richard Robertson eight months later. Jonathan Lehr, who claims to be Jessica's natural father, visited Lorraine and Jessica in the hospital at the time of the birth but did not live with them afterward, did not provide financial support, and is not named on the birth certificate. On December 21, 1978, when Jessica was over two years old, the Robertsons filed an adoption petition in the Family Court of Ulster County, New York. The Ulster County Family Court examined the state's putative father registry before entering the adoption order and found that Lehr had not registered. The court also determined that Lehr did not fall into any of the other categories of putative fathers entitled to notice under New York law, such as those adjudicated as fathers or identified on the birth certificate. On March 7, 1979, the court entered the order of adoption. One month after the adoption proceeding began, on January 30, 1979, Lehr filed a petition for paternity, support, and visitation in the Westchester County Family Court. Notice of this petition was served on Lorraine on February 22, 1979. Lehr first learned of the pending adoption on March 3, 1979, when he received notice of a motion to change venue of his paternity proceeding to Ulster County. His attorney contacted the Ulster County judge on March 7, 1979, but learned that the adoption order had already been signed that day. Lehr's paternity petition was later dismissed by the Westchester court. On June 22, 1979, he filed a petition to vacate the adoption order, which the Ulster County Family Court denied after receiving argument. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed by a divided vote. The Supreme Court of the United States granted review of Lehr's constitutional claims.
View caseUri Underwood and his wife arranged for a gestational surrogate to carry an embryo created with their gametes. After the surrogate gave birth a dispute arose over legal parentage. The court applied the Uniform Parentage Act and confirmed parentage because the couple had received the child into their home and held the child out as their own.
In 1984 Crispina Calvert underwent a hysterectomy that left her ovaries capable of producing eggs. She and her husband Mark desired a child genetically related to both of them. In 1989 Anna Johnson, a licensed vocational nurse who had previously given birth to a daughter, learned of Crispina's situation from a coworker and offered to serve as a surrogate. On January 15, 1990, Mark, Crispina, and Anna signed a written contract providing that an embryo created from Mark's sperm and Crispina's egg would be implanted in Anna, who would carry the child to term and relinquish all parental rights to the Calverts upon birth. In exchange the Calverts agreed to pay Anna $10,000 in installments, with the final payment due six weeks after birth, and to purchase a $200,000 life insurance policy on Anna's life. The zygote was implanted on January 19, 1990, and an ultrasound confirmed Anna's pregnancy less than a month later. During the pregnancy relations between the parties deteriorated. Anna felt the Calverts were not providing sufficient attention or obtaining the required insurance policy in a timely manner. In July 1990 Anna demanded the balance of the payments or she would refuse to relinquish the child. The following month the Calverts filed suit in superior court seeking a declaration that they were the legal parents of the unborn child. Anna filed her own action to be declared the mother, the cases were consolidated, and the parties agreed to the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the child. The child was born on September 19, 1990. Blood samples taken from Anna and the child excluded Anna as the genetic mother. The parties stipulated that Mark and Crispina were the genetic parents. After a trial in October 1990 the superior court ruled that the Calverts were the child's genetic, biological, and natural parents, that Anna had no parental rights, that the surrogacy contract was enforceable, and that Anna was not entitled to visitation. Anna appealed. The Court of Appeal for the Fourth District, Division Three, affirmed the judgment. The Supreme Court of California granted review.
View caseThe Act creates a presumption when a child is born during a marriage or within three hundred days after its termination. It also creates a presumption when an individual resides with a child for the first two years of life and openly holds the child out as the individual's own.
Supporting sources
A presumption may be overcome only by an adjudication under Article 6 or a valid denial of parentage under Article 3. Genetic evidence alone does not automatically rebut the presumption.
Supporting sources
A proceeding may be commenced after the child becomes an adult only if the child initiates the proceeding. A third party lacks standing to file after majority unless the child has also petitioned.
Supporting sources
Testing must be performed in a laboratory accredited by the AABB or an equivalent body designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Results must also disclose at least a 99 percent probability using a 0.50 prior probability and a combined relationship index of at least 100 to 1.
Supporting sources
Notice must be given to the woman who gave birth, any individual already established as a parent, any presumed acknowledged or adjudicated parent, and any individual whose parentage is to be adjudicated.
Supporting sources
…attributes of their respective bodies of family law. For example, as of the end of 1982, only eight States had adopted the Uniform Parentage Act. 9A U. L. A. 171 (Supp. 1983). : See Hafen, Marriage, Kinship, and Sexual Privacy, 81 Mich. L. Rev. 463, 479-481 (1983). : See Trimble v. Gordon , 430 U. S. 762, 769…