Jason People v. Danielle S.
226 Cal. App. 4th 167
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Jason P. sought a parental relationship with Gus S., born December 2009 to Danielle S., in a context where Jason contributed sperm for IVF; they were cohabiting but never married; Jason is not on the birth certificate and there was no voluntary declaration of paternity.
- The parties had a history of attempting natural conception; Danielle used Jason’s sperm for IVF after prior IUI attempts.
- At trial, evidence showed Jason was referred to as “Dada” by Gus and had substantial contact with Gus post-birth before Danielle terminated the relationship.
- The trial court granted a nonsuit on paternity under §7613(b), found no writing satisfying the 2011 amendment’s exception, and vacated pendente lite visitation; it remanded for determination of §7611(d) presumed parentage.
- The trial court rejected Jason’s estoppel theories and concluded §7613(b) precluded paternity under any theory and that the 7613(b) exception did not apply retroactively.
- The appellate court reversed to allow a full determination of whether Jason qualifies as a presumed parent under §7611(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §7613(b) precludes a presumed parent under §7611(d). | Jason seeks §7611(d) status despite §7613(b). | Danielle argues §7613(b) bars any paternity claim for a donor. | §7613(b) does not bar §7611(d) presumptive parentage. |
| Whether equitable estoppel can bar Jason under §7613(b). | Estoppel should bar Danielle from invoking §7613(b) based on post-conception conduct. | Public policy under §7613(b) blocks estoppel claims. | Equitable estoppel cannot override §7613(b)’s policy. |
| Whether the informed consent documents satisfy the “agreed to in writing” exception to §7613(b). | The forms, listing Jason as Intended Parent, show an agreement. | The forms address medical procedures only, not legal status. | The documents do not satisfy the writing requirement. |
| Whether retroactivity applies to the 2011 amendment to §7613(b). | Amendment applies retroactively to the facts. | Retroactivity is not necessary to resolve. | Retroactivity not needed; even if applied, forms fail the writing test. |
| Whether the decision violates Jason’s constitutional parental rights. | Preclusion under §7613(b) infringes parental rights. | Statutory framework balances interests; no constitutional violation. | Constitutional issue deemed moot because §7613(b) permits §7611(d) precursors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Steven S. v. Deborah D., 127 Cal.App.4th 319 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (rejected donor’s paternity where donor not married to mother; stated no paternity claim under §7613(b) as written)
- K.M. v. E.G., 37 Cal.4th 130 (Cal. 2005) (held §7613(b) does not apply to ova donation in true egg donation context; discussed scope and intent of §7613(b))
- In re T.R., 132 Cal.App.4th 1202 (Cal. App. 2005) (presumption of parentage under §7611(d) can apply even where biological link is not necessary)
- In re Nicholas H., 28 Cal.4th 56 (Cal. 2002) (affirmed state interest in preserving family integrity and presumption framework)
- Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 108 (Cal. 2005) (discussed nonbiological factors in presumed parentage)