The case of Johnson v. Calvert stands as a landmark decision in California family law, primarily addressing issues surrounding surrogacy and parental rights in the context of assisted reproduction. The Supreme Court of California, in its 1993 ruling, was tasked with determining who would be recognized as the legal mother of a child born through surrogacy where the gestational carrier (the surrogate) was not genetically related to the child, but the egg and sperm came from the intended parents.
This decision has significant implications in family law, reproductive technology, and the enforceability of surrogacy contracts, and it helps define how parental rights are established in cases involving assisted reproductive technologies (ART). The case fundamentally revolves around the issues of genetic consanguinity, gestation, and the crucial element of intent in the establishment of parentage.
Facts of Johnson v Calvert
Mark and Crispina Calvert, a married couple, sought to have a child. Due to Crispina’s hysterectomy, which left her unable to carry a pregnancy, they decided to pursue surrogacy as a means of having a child. Despite her inability to carry the pregnancy, Crispina retained ovarian function, meaning she could still produce eggs. The Calverts entered into a surrogacy agreement with Anna Johnson, who agreed to carry and deliver a child conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF). The embryo was created using Crispina’s egg and Mark’s sperm.
The agreement between the Calverts and Anna Johnson was specific in terms of parental rights. Anna Johnson agreed to relinquish all parental rights to the Calverts in exchange for a sum of $10,000 and a life insurance policy valued at $200,000. After the birth of the child, relations between the parties deteriorated, leading to legal disputes over the child’s parentage. Both the Calverts and Anna Johnson sought to establish their rights as the legal parents of the child.
The trial court ruled in favor of the Calverts, determining that they were the child’s legal and biological parents, and this decision was subsequently upheld by the California Court of Appeal. This decision set the stage for the California Supreme Court’s intervention, which addressed the complex legal questions surrounding surrogacy arrangements.
Legal Issue
The primary legal issue in Johnson v. Calvert was the determination of the “natural mother” of a child born through surrogacy. This was complicated by the fact that the child was genetically related to the Calverts (via Crispina’s egg) but carried and delivered by Anna Johnson, the surrogate. Under California law, parental rights typically stem from either genetic consanguinity (being the biological parent) or gestation (carrying the child). However, in this case, both elements did not coincide in the same individual. The question thus arose: who should be recognized as the legal mother of the child in this scenario?
A secondary issue involved whether recognizing Crispina as the legal mother would violate Anna Johnson’s constitutional rights or any public policy principles surrounding surrogacy arrangements. There was concern that recognizing the Calverts as the child’s parents might infringe on the surrogate’s rights, as it could be seen as the commodification of parental rights.
Johnson v Calvert Judgment
The California Supreme Court in Johnson v Calvert held in favor of the Calverts, recognizing them as the child’s legal and biological parents. The Court ruled that in cases where genetic consanguinity and gestation do not align in one woman, the woman who intended to procreate and raise the child is considered the “natural mother” under California law. Therefore, Crispina Calvert, who contributed the egg and intended to raise the child with her husband, was deemed the child’s legal mother, despite Anna Johnson’s role as the gestational carrier.
The Court emphasized that the determination of parental rights in surrogacy cases should be based on intent, rather than solely on the biological connection or the act of carrying the child. In this case, the Calverts clearly intended to procreate and raise the child as their own, and the surrogacy arrangement was made with that intention. As a result, the Court upheld the trial court’s decision, which recognized the Calverts as the child’s legal parents.
Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning in Johnson v. Calvert was rooted in the principle that in cases of reproductive technology, particularly surrogacy, intent is a key determinant of parentage. The Court acknowledged that both genetic consanguinity (Crispina’s egg) and gestation (Anna’s pregnancy) are traditionally recognized means of establishing a mother-child relationship under the Uniform Parentage Act. However, when these two elements do not coincide in one woman, the Court found that intent to procreate and raise the child becomes the defining factor in determining legal parentage.
The Court also noted that the Calverts had entered into a surrogacy contract with the intention of raising the child, and this intention was clearly articulated and agreed upon by both parties in the surrogacy agreement. The Court rejected the argument that Anna Johnson, the surrogate, should be recognized as the child’s mother. The Court held that such a recognition would undermine the Calverts’ parental bond and their intent to raise the child, thus violating public policy that favors the stability of family structures.
Additionally, the Court addressed concerns about Anna Johnson’s constitutional rights, particularly her right to make decisions regarding her parental status. The Court determined that recognizing the Calverts as the child’s legal parents did not infringe upon Anna Johnson’s rights, as the surrogacy contract was voluntary and did not involve coercion or violations of public policy. The Court reaffirmed that surrogacy agreements are enforceable under California law, provided they are entered into freely and in accordance with legal standards.
Conclusion
Johnson v. Calvert represents a pivotal moment in the legal landscape of surrogacy and assisted reproductive technology. The California Supreme Court’s decision to recognize the intended parents (Mark and Crispina Calvert) as the child’s legal parents, despite the fact that the child was carried by a surrogate, sets a clear precedent for future surrogacy cases. The ruling highlights the importance of intent in establishing parentage and reinforces the enforceability of surrogacy agreements. This case provides valuable guidance for both intended parents and surrogates, as well as legal professionals working in the field of reproductive law.