Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

contract
contracttrial

Related Cases

Northern Trust, NA v. Delley, 90 A.D.3d 1644, 935 N.Y.S.2d 805, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 09710
View Case »
Hoffman v. Miller in and for County of Maricopa, 255 Ariz. 165, 95 Arizona Cases Digest 12, 529 P.3d 101
View Case »
Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal.3d 660, 557 P.2d 106, 134 Cal.Rptr. 815
View Case »
May v. Anderson, 121 Nev. 668, 119 P.3d 1254
View Case »
Gerson v. Gerson, 148 N.J.Super. 194, 372 A.2d 374
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal.4th 84, 851 P.2d 776, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 494, 61 USLW 2721

Facts

Mark and Crispina Calvert, a married couple, sought to have a child after Crispina underwent a hysterectomy. They entered into a surrogacy agreement with Anna Johnson, who would carry their fertilized egg. The contract stipulated that Anna would relinquish all parental rights in exchange for compensation. After complications arose during the pregnancy and disputes over the agreement, both parties sought legal recognition of their parental rights, leading to a court case after the child was born.

Mark and Crispina Calvert are a married couple who desired to have a child. Crispina was forced to undergo a hysterectomy in 1984. Her ovaries remained capable of producing eggs, however, and the couple eventually considered surrogacy. In 1989 Anna Johnson heard about Crispina's plight from a coworker and offered to serve as a surrogate for the Calverts.

Issue

Who is the child's 'natural mother' under California law when a zygote formed from the gametes of a husband and wife is implanted in a surrogate who gives birth to the child?

Who is the child's 'natural mother' under California law when a zygote formed from the gametes of a husband and wife is implanted in a surrogate who gives birth to the child?

Rule

Under California law, the determination of maternity can be established by proof of having given birth or through genetic evidence, but only one natural mother can be recognized for a child.

The pertinent portion of Senate Bill No. 347, which passed with negligible opposition, became Part 7 of Division 4 of the California Civil Code, sections 7000 – 7021. Civil Code sections 7001 and 7002 replace the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children with the concept of the 'parent and child relationship.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the surrogacy agreement and the intentions of the parties involved. It determined that while both women presented evidence of a mother-child relationship, the law recognizes the genetic connection and the intent of the couple to raise the child as their own. The court concluded that Crispina, as the genetic mother, was the child's natural mother despite Anna having given birth.

Because two women each have presented acceptable proof of maternity, we do not believe this case can be decided without enquiring into the parties' intentions as manifested in the surrogacy agreement. Mark and Crispina are a couple who desired to have a child of their own genetic stock but are physically unable to do so without the help of reproductive technology. They affirmatively intended the birth of the child, and took the steps necessary to effect in vitro fertilization.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that Mark and Crispina Calvert were the child's natural parents, and Anna Johnson had no parental rights.

We conclude that the husband and wife are the child's natural parents, and that this result does not offend the state or federal Constitution or public policy.

Who won?

Mark and Crispina Calvert prevailed in the case because the court recognized their genetic connection and intent to parent the child as the basis for their legal parentage.

Mark and Crispina prevailed because the trial court ruled that Mark and Crispina were the child's 'genetic, biological and natural' father and mother, that Anna had no 'parental' rights to the child, and that the surrogacy contract was legal and enforceable against Anna's claims.

You must be