Johnson v Calvert

20 May 1993 | Ynares-Santiago, J.

Petitioner: Anna Johnson
Respondents: Mark Calvert, Crispina Calvert et al.

3.
4.
5.

DOCTRINE: Biological-assisted reproductive technology

6.

BRIEF
This is a rare case where a childs maternity is in issue. Mark and Crispina
entered into a contract with Anna for surrogacy. When their relations
deteriorated, Anna refused to give up the child. The Court ruled that in the case
where genetic consanguinity and giving birth do not coincide in one woman,
the woman who intended to procreate the child and raise as her own is the
natural mother under California law, who in this case is Crispina.
FACTS
1.
2.

3.
4.

5.
6.

Mark and Crispina Calvert are a married couple who desired to have a child.
Crispina forced to undergo a hysterectomy1 in 1984.
The couple got Anna Johnson as a surrogate under a contract with the ff
conditions:
a. Anna will relinquish all parental rights
b. Mark and Crispina will pay Anna $10,000 in a series of installments
c. + $200,000 life insurance policy on Annas life
Appellant gestated a zygote conceived of the respondents genetic material
Couple had a falling out with Anna because:
a. Anna concealed the fact that she had suffered several stillbirths and
miscarriages
b. Anna felt Mark and Crispina did not do enough to obtain the insurance
policy
c. The couple was not able to produce the payments due to Anna
Trial court: Mark and Crispina were the childs genetic, biological and natural
parents, Anna had no parental rights. Visitation rights terminated
CA affirmed the trial courts decision.

Supreme Court: ISSUES of the CASE

ISSUE: Who is the legitimate mother of the surrogate child? (CRISPINA aka GENETIC
MOTHER)
RATIO
1. Under the California Family Code Section7610 woman may establish maternity
by one of three methods:
a. Proof of having given birth to the child
b. Proof of genetic relationship with the child
c. Proof of adoption
2. Annas argument: Civil Code Section 7003:, motherhood may be established by
proof of her having given birth to the child
1

Operation to remove a womans uterus

7.
8.

Crispinas argument: Evidence Code 892: When maternity is disputed, genetic

evidence is admissible
Both women had legitimate maternity claims
When genetic consanguinity and giving birth do not coincide in one woman, the
woman who intended to procreate the child and raise as her own is the
natural mother under California law.
Mark and Crispina entered into the agreement with the aim to bring a child into
the world and not donate a zygote to Anna
Anna signed a contract relinquishing her parental rights
Contract signed by Anna resembled an employment contract (with
compensation for services) rather than a contract for consent to adoption

RULING: petition DISMISSED, judgment of CA and trial court is affirmed.