Buzzanca

John A. v. Buzzanca

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 180·61 Cal. App. 4th 1410·72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 280·98 Daily Journal DAR 2436·77 A.L.R. 5th 775
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 10, 1998Nos. G022147, G022157California9,543 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sills, J.

*1412 Opinion

Introduction

Jaycee was bom because Luanne and John Buzzanca agreed to have an embryo genetically unrelated to either of them implanted in a woman — a surrogate — who would carry and give birth to the child for them. After the fertilization, implantation and pregnancy, Luanne and John split up, and the question of who are Jaycee’s lawful parents came before the trial court.

Luanne claimed that she and her erstwhile husband were the lawful parents, but John disclaimed any responsibility, financial or otherwise. The woman who gave birth also appeared in the case to make it clear that she made no claim to the child.

The trial court then reached an extraordinary conclusion: Jaycee had no lawful parents. First, the woman who gave birth to Jaycee was not the mother; the court had — astonishingly—already accepted a stipulation that neither she nor her husband were the “biological” parents. Second, Luanne was not the mother. According to the trial court, she could not be the mother because she had neither contributed the egg nor given birth. And John could not be the father, because, not having contributed the sperm, he had no biological relationship with the child.

We…

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.