Contact us

Home

FAQ

Surrogacy Support by Telephone

Surrogacy Book

Looking for a Surrogate Mother or an egg donor?

This book is a moving real-life account of one woman's struggle with infertility and her journey through surrogacy to have the family she desperately wanted.

Click here for more details

Two women who could both be considered mothers of the same children aired their claims before a state appellate court Friday in a case that could set new ground rules for lesbian couples' parental rights.

The basics are clear: One partner provided the eggs, while the other carried the twin girls to term. The couple eventually separated.

In a packed San Francisco courtroom, a three-judge Court of Appeal panel heard of the couple's nearly six-year partnership in raising the children, and the girls' affection for both women.

At issue is whether those factors outweigh the egg donor's pre-birth written waiver of maternal status.

State courts have heard other custody disputes between lesbian parents, generally siding with the birth mother, and have ruled on related issues in cases of artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood, basing their decisions on pre-birth agreements.

But this appears to be the first case in which two women could both claim, with scientific support, to be the children's biological mothers.

Jill Hersh, attorney for the egg donor -- a Marin County woman identified only as K.M. -- disputed a trial judge's earlier findings that her client had knowingly waived her rights. Regardless, she told the court, "the policies of the state of California should step in to protect the integrity of this family and to protect these children.

"We have two natural mothers (who) should be treated the same way as two natural parents in any other relationship,'' Hersh said.

Diana Richmond, attorney for the birth mother, a Boston woman identified only as E.G., countered that her client had the right to raise her children as a single parent. She said K.M. had consented "with her eyes open'' and never tried to adopt the girls.

To interfere with that arrangement, "the court would have to substitute its own notions of what a family should look like,'' Richmond argued. She said such a ruling would open the door to parental claims by anyone who helped raise a child, including a relative or a roommate.

Across the street, meanwhile, same-sex marriages continued at City Hall, and a Superior Court judge refused to halt the weddings. The legal issues are not unrelated. The opposing lawyers in the custody case agreed after the hearing that state recognition of marriage would go a long way toward clearing up gay and lesbian parenthood disputes.

But they disagreed sharply about whose interests would be served if the court decided that a woman who was genetically linked to the children, and helped raise them from birth, is entitled to the parental rights she once agreed to relinquish.

K.M. and E.G. registered as domestic partners in San Francisco in 1994 and decided to have children. Because E.G. was infertile, and her partner couldn't carry a child, K.M. provided eggs for in vitro fertilization at a UCSF clinic, where she signed a form waiving parental rights.

The girls were born in December 1995 and spent nearly six years calling both women "mama'' at their new home in Marin County. Then, the couple broke up, and E.G. moved with the girls to Massachusetts, where she allows occasional visitation by her former partner. K.M. sued for full parental rights, which could lead to joint custody, but a Marin County court commissioner ruled against her, citing the waiver. That set the stage for Friday's hearing.

During the session, Hersh argued that the best proof of the women's intent was not the written consent form but their conduct in the following years, when they lived as "a traditional middle-class, two-parent, two-child nuclear family.''

But Justice Mark Simons said the court commissioner had found that both women had intended for E.G. to be the sole legal mother. Simons said past custody rulings had focused on a couple's intentions before childbirth, without regard to the bonds children later form -- a standard he called "somewhat troubling.''

Neither Simons nor the other panel members, Presiding Justice Barbara Jones and Justice Linda Gemello, made it clear how they intended to decide the case. A ruling is due within 90 days

back to top