Nancy S. v. Michele G.
California Court of Appeal
279 Cal. Rptr. 212 (1991)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Nancy S. (plaintiff) and Michele G. (defendant) began a romantic relationship and eventually had two children, accomplished by the artificial insemination of Nancy. Michele was listed as the father on both birth certificates. Nancy and Michele began raising the children together, acting as coparents, although Michele never sought an adoption. When the couple separated, they agreed to a custody arrangement whereby the children would alternate between houses, spending time together for a portion of the week. Following a disagreement, Nancy commenced a proceeding under the Uniform Parentage Act (the act), seeking a declaration that she was entitled to sole custody and that Michele’s visitation was subject to her consent. The act provided that before awarding custody to anyone other than a parent, a court must find that awarding custody to a parent would be detrimental to the child and the award to a nonparent would serve the best interests of the child. Michele responded by seeking an order for custody and visitation consistent with the couple’s original arrangement. Michele conceded that Nancy was the biological parent of the children but argued that she should be considered a parent on several grounds, including: (1) de facto parent; (2) collateral estoppel; and (3) in loco parentis. The trial court awarded full and sole custody to Nancy, determining that Michele was not a parent under the act. Michele appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stein, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.