S.M.

S.M. v. E.C. CA5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 27, 2014F065817California9,129 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Y.M. and E.C. entered into a domestic partnership registered with the State of California in October 2006. They decided to have a child together. According to Y.M., they spent “two years off and on planning and trying to conceive [a] child.” They asked S.M. to be their sperm donor. Y.M. and E.C. found a sample sperm donor contract on the Internet, made some edits and deletions, and printed two copies of their edited contract. Y.M., E.C., and S.M. signed both copies of the contract. According to S.M., Y.M. and E.C. paid him $300 for his semen samples. Y.M. assisted E.C. in artificial insemination on two occasions in October 2008, and Y.M. believed this was how E.C. became pregnant. During the time period Y.M. and E.C. were trying to conceive, however, E.C. and S.M. were in a secret romantic relationship.2 E.C. began having sex with S.M. in June 2008, and she believed she had conceived prior to the two artificial insemination attempts. At the time E.C. became pregnant, S.M. did not intend to be the father of the minor.

1Subsequent statutory references are to the Family Code unless otherwise indicated. 2Y.M. did not become aware of E.C. and S.M.’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.