Also known as: UPA (2002) · Uniform Parentage Act · UPA 2002
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A uniform statute that establishes rules for determining the existence of a parent-child relationship. The statute recognizes multiple independent bases for parentage, including giving birth, marital and cohabitation presumptions, voluntary acknowledgments, genetic testing, adoption, and assisted reproduction agreements.
Usha Upton and her spouse entered a court-validated gestational surrogacy agreement naming them intended parents before embryo transfer. The surrogate delivered the child. When a later proceeding arose to confirm parentage, the court applied the Uniform Parentage Act provisions governing validated surrogacy arrangements and recognized both spouses as legal parents from the moment of birth.
Una Ueda agreed with her partner to raise twins conceived through anonymous donor insemination. After birth Una resided with the children, provided daily care, and presented them as her own to schools and benefit providers. In a subsequent support action the court determined that Una qualified as a legal parent under the Uniform Parentage Act because she had received the children into her home and held them out as her own.
Elisa B. and Emily B. entered into a lesbian relationship in 1993 and began living together six months later. They introduced each other to friends as their partner, exchanged rings, opened a joint bank account, and believed they were in a committed relationship. They discussed having children and decided that they both wished to give birth, with Emily as the stay-at-home mother and Elisa as the primary breadwinner because Elisa earned more than twice as much money as Emily. They chose a donor at a sperm bank so the children would be biological brothers and sisters. Elisa became pregnant in February 1997 and gave birth to Chance in November 1997. Emily began the insemination process in June of 1997 and became pregnant in August 1997, giving birth prematurely in March 1998 to twins Ry and Kaia. Ry had medical problems including Down’s syndrome and required heart surgery. Elisa was present when Emily was inseminated and picked up additional sperm to inseminate Emily at their home. They jointly selected the children’s names, joining their surnames with a hyphen. They each breast-fed all of the children. Elisa claimed all three children as her dependents on her tax returns and obtained a life insurance policy on herself naming Emily as the beneficiary. Elisa’s parents referred to the twins as their grandchildren, and her sister referred to Elisa as the twins’ mother. Elisa treated all of the children as hers and told a prospective employer that she had triplets. Elisa and Emily identified themselves as coparents of Ry at an organization arranging care for his Down’s syndrome. Elisa and Emily separated in November 1999. Elisa promised to support Emily and the twins as much as she possibly could and initially paid the mortgage payments of approximately $1,500 per month on the house in which Emily and the twins continued to live, as well as other expenses. When they sold the house and Emily and the twins moved into an apartment in November 2000, Elisa paid Emily $1,000 a month. In early 2001, Elisa stated she lost her position as a full-time employee and told Emily she no longer could support her and the twins. At the time of trial, Elisa was earning $95,000 a year. Emily applied for aid. On June 7, 2001, the El Dorado County District Attorney filed a complaint in superior court to establish that Elisa B. is a parent of two-year-old twins Kaia B. and Ry B., who were born to Emily B., and to order Elisa to pay child support. After a hearing, the superior court rendered a written decision on July 11, 2002, ordering Elisa to pay child support in the amount of $907.50 per child for a total of $1815 per month. Elisa petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate, and the court directed the superior court to vacate its order and dismiss the action. The Supreme Court granted review.
Unity Underhill gave birth to a child while married to Ulrike Ulrich. A former partner later sought to establish genetic paternity. The court applied the Uniform Parentage Act marital presumption arising from birth during the marriage and required any competing claim to proceed through a formal adjudication rather than automatic displacement by genetic evidence.
Ugo Ucelli had only sporadic contact with his child and never established a substantial relationship. When the mother consented to adoption, the court applied the Uniform Parentage Act notice provisions and determined that Ugo was not entitled to notice because he had not grasped the opportunity to develop a parental relationship protected by the statute.
Ursula Ung and her spouse arranged for a gestational surrogate to carry an embryo created with their gametes under a written agreement. After birth the surrogate asserted parentage. The court applied the Uniform Parentage Act rules recognizing the intent of the intended parents in a gestational surrogacy arrangement and adjudicated parentage in their favor.
The statute provides that a parent-child relationship is established between an individual and a child if the individual gives birth to the child. This basis operates independently of genetic testing, marital presumptions, or consent of any other party.
Supporting sources
…attributes of their respective bodies of family law. For example, as of the end of 1982, only eight States had adopted the Uniform Parentage Act. 9A U. L. A. 171 (Supp. 1983). : See Hafen, Marriage, Kinship, and Sexual Privacy, 81 Mich. L. Rev. 463, 479-481 (1983). : See Trimble v. Gordon , 430 U. S. 762, 769…
…donor, and received the resulting twin children into her home and held them out as her own, is the children’s parent under the Uniform Parentage Act and has an obligation to support them. Facts On June 7, 2001, the El Dorado County District Attorney filed a complaint in superior court to establish that Elisa B. is a parent of…
…(a)-(d), (f), (g) (housing); Government Code section 12955, subdivision (e) (credit for housing); Civil Code sections 7000-7021 (Uniform Parentage Act) (family relations). : See also Justice Mosk's dissenting opinion in Borer v. American Airlines, Inc. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 441 [138 Cal. Rptr. 302, 563 P.2d 858] in which he…
…to require mental and physical health evaluations and home studies. Further guidance may be provided by article eight of the Uniform Parentage Act of 2000 (act). See Unif. Parentage
A spouse of the woman who gave birth may commence a proceeding to challenge parentage only if the individual did not consent before, on, or after the birth or withdrew consent. The proceeding must also be filed within the two-year limitations period after birth.
Supporting sources
The petitioner must give notice to the woman who gave birth, any individual who is already a parent under the act, any presumed acknowledged or adjudicated parent, and any individual whose parentage is to be adjudicated.
Supporting sources
Genetic testing must be performed in a laboratory accredited by the AABB or an accrediting body designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and must disclose at least a 99 percent probability of parentage using a 0.50 prior probability together with a combined relationship index of at least 100 to 1.
Supporting sources
When two or more individuals assert competing claims, the court adjudicates parentage in the best interest of the child after considering the child's age, the length and quality of each relationship, the harm from recognizing or not recognizing each claim, and the legal basis for each asserted parentage.
Supporting sources