Christopher YY v. Jessica ZZ and Nicole ZZ
New York Court of Appeals
69 N.Y.S.3d 887 (2018)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Jessica ZZ and Nicole ZZ (collectively, the mothers) (defendants), a married couple, wanted to have a child. Christopher YY (plaintiff) agreed to provide his sperm in order to help the mothers achieve this. An informal artificial-insemination process was used to facilitate the pregnancy of Jessica. Prior to insemination, Christopher entered into a signed agreement with the mothers whereby he waived all claims to paternity, custody, and visitation. The mothers waived any claim to child support. Following the birth of the child, Christopher and the mothers had a falling out over a disagreement about access to the child. The child was given Nicole’s surname and lived with the mothers. In April 2015, Christopher filed a paternity petition and a petition seeking custody of the child in family court. Jessica opposed the request for a paternity test and filed a cross-petition for custody. Nicole was added as a respondent. Jessica moved to dismiss based on the presumption of legitimacy afforded to a child under New York domestic-relations law. The law provided that a court shall order a genetic paternity test unless it is not in the best interests of the child based on the presumption of legitimacy afforded to a child born to a married woman. The family court denied the motion to dismiss and ordered a genetic test. Jessica appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mulvey, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.