Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrial

Related Cases

C.M. v. M.C., 7 Cal.App.5th 1188, 213 Cal.Rptr.3d 351, 17 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 869, 2017 Daily Journal D.A.R. 847

Facts

M.C. was the gestational carrier for triplet children conceived using the sperm of C.M. and ova from an anonymous donor. In 2015, M.C. and C.M. entered into a written surrogacy agreement, which identified C.M. as the intended parent. During the pregnancy, M.C. developed reservations and sought parental rights, leading C.M. to file a petition to establish his sole parentage. The trial court ruled in favor of C.M., prompting M.C. to appeal.

M.C. executed the 75-page Agreement on May 31, 2015; Father executed the agreement on June 3, 2015. The Agreement identified Father as the 'Intended Parent' and M.C. as 'Surrogate.' M.C. was 47 years old at the time she entered into the Agreement. She represented in the Agreement that she has four children of 'childcare age,' and that she 'has previously been a surrogate mother and is familiar with the undertaking.'

Issue

Did the surrogacy agreement comply with California law, and did it effectively terminate the surrogate mother's parental rights?

M.C. raises various substantive and procedural challenges to the judgment. The challenges amount to an all-out attack on the constitutionality and enforceability of surrogacy agreements in California.

Rule

Under California Family Code section 7962, a surrogacy agreement must meet specific requirements to be enforceable, including representation by separate counsel and notarization.

Section 7962 establishes a procedure for a summary determination of parental rights when specific requirements for an enforceable surrogacy agreement are met.

Analysis

The court found that the surrogacy agreement substantially complied with the requirements of section 7962, including the necessary disclosures and representation by separate counsel. M.C. had signed the agreement voluntarily and had been informed of its implications. The court determined that the agreement was valid and that M.C.'s claims to parental rights were foreclosed by the terms of the agreement.

The court found that Father 'substantially complied' with section 7962, 'the holding of the Supreme Court in Johnson v. Calvert, and the holding of Buzzanca.' Specifically, the court found that M.C. 'read and reviewed every page of the gestational agreement'; that she initialed and signed the Agreement; that 'her agreement was voluntary'; and that 'all the other provisions of 7962 have been satisfied.'

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling, declaring C.M. the sole legal parent of the children and finding that M.C. had no parental rights.

The court entered a detailed judgment establishing that Father is the sole parent of the Children.

Who won?

C.M. prevailed in the case because the court upheld the validity of the surrogacy agreement, which established his parenthood and terminated M.C.'s parental rights.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Hall v. Hall, 584 U.S. 59, 138 S.Ct. 1118, 200 L.Ed.2d 399, 86 USLW 4159, 100 Fed.R.Serv.3d 179, 18 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2823, 2018 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2765, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 143

HM DG, Inc. v. Amini, 219 Cal.App.4th 1100, 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 412, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,612, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,805

La Trace v. Webster, 17 So.3d 1210, 67 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 78

Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber, 194 Ariz. 363, 982 P.2d 1277, 15 IER Cases 419, 298 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 34

Affiliated Distillers Brands Corp. v. R.W.L. Wine & Liquor Co., 213 Md. 509, 132 A.2d 582