From our private database of 35,800+ case briefs...
Steven S. v. Deborah D.
California Court of Appeal
25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 482 (2005)
Facts
Steven S. (plaintiff) agreed to provide semen to Deborah D. (defendant) for artificial insemination. Deborah became pregnant but was unable to carry the baby to term. Steven and Deborah then began a sexual relationship. After the sexual relationship ended, Deborah sought to become pregnant again. Deborah scheduled an appointment for the insemination procedure, which Steven attended with her for support. The artificial insemination was successful, and Deborah informed Steven that she was pregnant. Throughout Deborah’s pregnancy, Steven accompanied her to doctor visits. When the baby was born, Deborah called Steven to inform him that he was a father. Steven remained present in the baby’s life, and when the baby turned three, Steven filed a petition to establish paternity and parental rights. Deborah objected and argued that under California law, the donor of semen used for artificial insemination by a physician is not treated as the natural father absent a marital relationship between the donor and the mother. The trial court found for Steven, concluding that although the baby was conceived through artificial insemination and Deborah and Steven were unmarried, Deborah was estopped from denying Steven’s paternity because of the previous sexual relationship and because public policy favors a finding of paternity. Deborah appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hastings, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,800 briefs, keyed to 984 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.
