## Facts

- Virgie Foy was adjudicated gravely disabled under the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act and placed under a conservatorship by Santa Clara County’s public guardian.
- The conservatorship order deprived Virgie of the right to consent to or refuse medical treatment.
- The County placed Virgie in a private, locked mental health facility that housed both male and female patients.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants knew Virgie had a history of irresponsible sexual behavior but failed to supervise her or provide contraception or counseling.
- Virgie became pregnant while in the facility; defendants allegedly did not diagnose the pregnancy until about two weeks before delivery.
- Plaintiffs alleged that timely diagnosis would have allowed the conservator to arrange a therapeutic abortion.
- Virgie delivered Reffie, a healthy child.
- Virgie and Reffie sued physicians, the facility, and the County for damages, including pain and suffering and future costs of raising Reffie.
- The trial court sustained a general demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action.

## Issues

1. Whether a child may state a tort claim for “wrongful life” based on alleged negligence that failed to prevent the child’s birth.
2. Whether an incompetent mother may recover tort damages for the pregnancy and birth of a healthy child, including child-rearing costs, based on negligent supervision, failure to provide contraception, or delayed pregnancy diagnosis.
3. Whether alleged damages premised on abortion as the avoided outcome constitute legally cognizable injury under California tort law when the child is healthy.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend.
- Reffie’s claim was barred because California law does not recognize “wrongful life” damages for being born.
- Virgie’s claim, as pleaded, failed because California law does not treat the birth of a normal, healthy child as a compensable injury supporting recovery of child-rearing costs.
- Allegations that earlier diagnosis would have enabled an abortion did not make the requested damages recoverable where the asserted harm was the child’s existence and the costs of raising the child.

## Legal Principles

- A “wrongful life” claim is not cognizable when damages would require comparing the plaintiff’s life with nonexistence; courts will not award damages on that basis.
- Under California law at the time, the birth of a healthy child is not a legally recognized injury supporting recovery of the ordinary costs of raising the child, even if pregnancy resulted from negligence.
- Even where custodial or professional duties may exist, tort recovery depends on legally cognizable injury and permissible damages; conservatorship status does not expand recoverable damages to include wrongful-life theories or child-rearing costs for a healthy child.

## Conclusion

The court held that neither the child nor the incompetent mother stated a cause of action for damages premised on preventing the birth of a healthy child, and it affirmed dismissal on demurrer because the alleged harms and requested damages were not recoverable under controlling California tort doctrine.


Foy v. Greenblott, 141 Cal. App. 3d 1, 190 Cal. Rptr. 84 (Ct. App. 1983)