BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1217 Page 1 CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS AB 1217 (Fuentes) As Amended August 24, 2012 Majority vote ----------------------------------------------------------------- |ASSEMBLY: |76-0 |(May 19, 2011) |SENATE: |37-0 |(August 28, | | | | | | |2012) | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Original Committee Reference: HEALTH SUMMARY : Clarifies parentage rights of parties using assisted reproduction technology and specifies requirements for an assisted reproduction agreement for gestational carriers. Specifically, this bill : 1)Requires that both parties to an assisted reproduction agreement for gestational carriers, as defined, be represented by separate, independent counsel prior to the signing of the agreement. Excludes from the definition of gestational carrier an intended parent, defined as an individual who manifest the intent to be legally bound as the parent of a child resulting from assisted reproduction. 2)Prohibits the parties to an assisted reproduction agreement for gestational carriers from undergoing an embryo transfer, or commencing injectable medicine prior to the execution of the agreement. 3)Allows an action to establish a parent-child relationship for a child conceived as the result of an assisted reproduction agreement for gestational carriers to be filed prior to the birth of the child, as specified. 4)Provides that an assisted reproduction agreement for gestational carriers that is executed in accordance with required provisions and filed with the court rebuts any presumption that the surrogate, and her spouse or partner, are the parents of the child. 5)Requires the court, upon the filing of a properly executed assisted reproduction agreement for gestational carriers, to issue a judgment establishing a parent-child relationship. AB 1217 Page 2 6)Provides that all pleadings and documents in a case filed under 4) or 5) above, shall not be open to the public, except in exceptional circumstances and where necessary. 7)Provides that an assisted reproduction agreement for gestational carriers that is executed in accordance with required provisions is presumptively valid and may not be rescinded or revoked without a court order. The Senate amendments clarify parties' rights under an assisted reproduction agreement for gestational carriers. EXISTING LAW : 1)Defines "assisted reproduction" as conception by any means other than sexual intercourse. Defines "assisted reproduction agreement" as a written contract that includes a person who intends to be the legal parent of a child born through assisted reproduction and defines the terms of the relationship between the parties to the contract. 2)Provides that a party to an assisted reproduction agreement may bring an action at any time to establish a parent-child relationship consistent with the intent expressed in the agreement. 3)Provides that an action to establish parentage may be brought before the birth of the child, but enforcement of that order must be stayed until the child's birth. AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill addressed rights of parties to assisted reproduction agreements. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs. COMMENTS : This bill seeks to clarify the rights of parties to assisted reproduction agreements. Case law in California makes clear that the intended parents are the natural parents and this bill clarifies, codifies and expands upon that case law. Two cases have established that intended parents in assisted reproduction are the legal parents of the child so conceived. In the first case, Johnson v. Calvert (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 84, a married couple entered into a contract with a surrogate to have AB 1217 Page 3 an embryo created with the couple's genetic material implanted in the surrogate. The parties had a falling out and the parents and the surrogate brought separate legal actions to be declared the unborn child's parents. The trial court consolidated the actions, determined that the married couple was the child's biological and natural parents, and terminated the visitation rights that the surrogate had obtained in an earlier temporary order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that when the two methods of recognizing parentage in women - genetic evidence of parentage and giving birth to the child - occur in two separate women, the woman who intended that the child be born is the child's legal mother. Wrote the Court: 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 genes 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. But for their acted-on intention, the child would not exist. Anna agreed to facilitate the procreation of Mark's and Crispina's child. The parties' aim was to bring Mark's and Crispina's child into the world, not for Mark and Crispina to donate a zygote to Anna. Crispina from the outset intended to be the child's mother. Although the gestative function Anna performed was necessary to bring about the child's birth, it is safe to say that Anna would not have been given the opportunity to gestate or deliver the child had she, prior to implantation of the zygote, manifested her own intent to be the child's mother. No reason appears why Anna's later change of heart should vitiate the determination that Crispina is the child's natural mother. We conclude that although the ÝUniform Parentage] Act recognizes both genetic consanguinity and giving birth as means of establishing a mother and child relationship, when the two means do not coincide in one woman, she who intended to procreate the child--that is, she who intended to bring about the birth of a child that she intended to raise as her own--is the natural mother under California law. AB 1217 Page 4 Five years later, a more complicated fact pattern arose in In re Marriage of Buzzanca (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1410, but with the same ultimate result. In that case, the intended parents did not have a genetic link to the child, but instead entered into a contract with a surrogate to have a fertilized egg from donors unrelated to the couple implanted in the surrogate. Just days prior to the birth of that child, the husband filed for dissolution alleging there were no children of the marriage. The wife filed her own action to be declared the child's mother. The trial court accepted the stipulation of the surrogate and her husband that they were not the parents, but then determined that the wife was not the mother of the child and that, therefore, neither was the husband, effectively leaving the child as a legal orphan. The Court of Appeals reversed, writing succinctly: Jaycee was born 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. . . . 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 disagree. Let us get right to the point: Jaycee never would have been born had not Luanne and John both agreed to have a fertilized egg implanted in a surrogate. (Id. at 1412.) The court concluded that if a man who consents to artificial insemination of his wife with donor sperm is considered the father of the child so conceived, "there is no reason the result should be any different in the case of a married couple who AB 1217 Page 5 consent to in vitro fertilization by unknown donors and subsequent implantation into a woman who is, as a surrogate, willing to carry the embryo to term for them." (Id. at 1418.) Both of these cases make clear that even without a genetic link or a link by virtue of giving birth, the parties who intended to bring the child into the world are the child's legal parents. This bill seeks to clarify and enhance that case law. Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0005700