Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 19,800+ case briefs...

K.M. v. E.G.

California Supreme Court
37 Cal. 4th 130, 117 P.3d 673, 33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 61 (2005)


K.M. (plaintiff) and E.G. (defendant), two women, began a relationship in June 1993 and moved in together in March 1994. They registered as domestic partners. E.G. was interested in raising a child, even prior to her relationship with K.M. In November 1993, E.G. applied to adopt. She later attempted in vitro fertilization unsuccessfully. A fertility specialist at the University of California at San Francisco Medical Center (UCSF) suggested that E.G. use K.M.’s ova to become pregnant. The women agreed to do so on the condition that they not tell anyone that K.M. was the donor. E.G. gave birth to twins in 1995. The parties disputed whether K.M. was intended to be treated as the children’s parent: E.G. said she would have declined K.M.’s eggs unless K.M. agreed to be simply a donor and not the children’s mother. K.M. said she would not have donated her eggs had she not understood that the women would co-parent. At the time of the donation, K.M. signed a UCSF form waiving any parental rights, but she later indicated that the form did not reflect her expectations. When the twins were born, E.G. was identified as their mother on the birth certificate. No father was named. E.G. and K.M. married soon after the birth, but K.M. did not adopt the twins. Nor did she cover them under her health insurance or designate them as beneficiaries under a life-insurance policy. The couple represented themselves as co-parents, however, to their families and the twins’ school. The children’s nanny stated that both women were the twins’ mothers. K.M. and E.G. ended their relationship in 2001. K.M. filed suit seeking custody and visitation rights. The trial court and Court of Appeal both ruled in favor of E.G. K.M. appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Moreno, J.)

Dissent (Werdegar, J.)

Dissent (Kennard, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 507,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 507,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 19,800 briefs, keyed to 985 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial