X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
american lawyer media news service One big happy family? Not exactly. California’s Sixth District Court of Appeal recently affirmed that Robert B. and Susan B. are the parents of 2-year-old Daniel B. The only problem is that Robert and Susan are two strangers thrown together in a wacky predicament produced by a Santa Clara County fertility clinic’s big error. Susan was mistakenly fertilized with Robert’s semen, even though she had made it quite clear that she wanted anonymously donated ova and sperm to avoid just such a legal web, and despite the desires of Robert-and his wife, Denise B.-that the embryos produced for them would go to no one else. According to the ruling published recently in Robert B. v. Susan B., No. H024926, the situation began in May 2000, when Robert and Denise contracted with an anonymous ovum donor for fertilization with Robert’s sperm. Susan, a single woman, went to the same fertility clinic to obtain genetic material from “two strangers who would contractually sign their rights” so that “there would be no paternity case against her, ever.” The birth of litigation Unfortunately, the clinic implanted three of the 13 embryos produced for Robert and his wife into Susan. In February 2001, 10 days apart, Susan gave birth to Daniel, and Denise bore Madeline, Daniel’s genetic sister. Once the error was disclosed, Robert filed a paternity action and, after genetic testing, was declared Daniel’s father. Susan challenged that finding, saying Robert should be viewed as nothing more than a sperm donor, while Robert’s wife, Denise, fought a court order that said she had no standing to sue because she is not biologically related to Daniel. Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Dolores Carr rejected both Susan’s and Denise’s arguments, and the San Jose-based appellate court affirmed. “In order to be a donor . . . a man must provide semen to a physician for the purpose of artificially inseminating ‘a woman other than the donor’s wife,’ ” Justice Franklin Elia wrote. “ It is uncontested that Robert did not provide his semen for the purpose of inseminating anyone other than Denise.” Denise’s claim-that Susan “colluded” with the fertility clinic to obtain the embryo and that Denise was the “intended” mother-also failed. The court held there could be only one natural mother.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.