Elisa B. v. Superior Court

Supreme Court of California
117 P.3d 660 (2005)


Elisa B. (defendant) and Emily B. were a lesbian couple who agreed to start a family together. Using the same anonymous sperm donor, each became pregnant. Elisa gave birth to a child in November 1997. Emily gave birth to twins in March 1998. One of the twins was born with Down’s syndrome and had serious health problems. Neither woman adopted the children of the other, nor did Emily and Elisa register themselves under California’s domestic partner law. They lived and held themselves out as a family of five, however. Both women breastfed all three children and gave them the same surname: a hyphenation of Elisa’s and Emily’s. Elisa named the three children as dependents on her tax returns. Because Elisa made more money than Emily, they agreed that Elisa would support the family financially while Emily stayed at home for a few years. In November 1999, Emily and Elisa split. Elisa initially provided financial support to Emily and the twins but eventually stopped. Emily and the twins were forced to seek public assistance. The District Attorney of El Dorado County brought a lawsuit in the Superior Court (plaintiff) against Elisa for the payment of child support. The Superior Court ruled that Elisa was liable under the principle of equitable estoppel. The Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds that Elisa was not responsible under California’s version of the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA). The California Supreme Court agreed to review the decision.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is for members only. To access this section, please login or give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.


The issue section is for members only and includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, please login or give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.

Holding and Reasoning (Moreno, J.)

The holding and reasoning section is for members only and includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please login or give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.

Here's why 10,000 law students rely on our case briefs:

  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners not other law students.
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet.
  • 7,548 briefs - keyed to 85 casebooks.
  • Uniform format for every case brief.
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language.
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions.
  • Ability to tag case briefs in an outlining tool.
  • Top-notch customer support.
Start Your Free Trial Now