## Facts

- Kristine H. and Lisa R. were in a same-sex relationship when Kristine became pregnant through donor insemination.
- While Kristine was about seven months pregnant, both women jointly filed an action seeking a judgment declaring parental rights and requested that both be recognized as the child’s legal parents.
- The superior court entered a stipulated judgment declaring Kristine the biological and legal mother and Lisa the child’s second mother/parent, providing for joint custody and directing that the birth certificate list Kristine as “mother” and Lisa in the space for “father.”
- The judgment stated that the two women were the only legally recognized parents and assumed full legal, custodial, and financial responsibility for the child.
- The child was born after entry of the judgment; the couple later separated.
- Kristine moved to vacate the stipulated judgment, arguing the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to determine parentage of an unborn child and that parentage could not be established solely by stipulation.
- Lisa opposed the motion and pursued custody and visitation based on her asserted legal-parent status.

## Issues

1. Whether Kristine, having sought and benefitted from a stipulated parentage judgment, could later collaterally attack it as void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
2. Whether entry of a stipulated parentage judgment before the child’s birth (and based on stipulation rather than independent findings) constituted a fundamental jurisdictional defect rendering the judgment void.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and reinstated the trial court’s order denying Kristine’s motion to vacate.
- Kristine was equitably estopped from challenging the stipulated judgment’s validity.
- Any asserted defects related, at most, to the exercise of jurisdiction by a court of general jurisdiction, making the judgment voidable (not void) and not subject to the collateral attack attempted.
- The stipulated judgment recognizing both women as the child’s legal parents remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- A party who invoked the court’s authority, stipulated to a judgment, and accepted its benefits may be equitably estopped from later asserting lack of jurisdiction to avoid that judgment, particularly where another party relied on the judgment.
- Superior courts, as courts of general jurisdiction, possess subject-matter jurisdiction over parentage actions; alleged procedural or timing errors typically concern the exercise of jurisdiction, not a complete absence of jurisdiction.
- Parentage judgments establishing a child’s legal status are entitled to strong finality and are not readily subject to collateral attack, especially when undoing them would disrupt established parent-child relationships and support obligations.
- Court-approved stipulations can support parentage and custody orders; reliance on a stipulation does not, by itself, eliminate the court’s power to act.

## Conclusion

The court held that the biological mother could not undo a stipulated pre-birth judgment naming her former partner as a legal parent by characterizing alleged errors as jurisdictional; equitable estoppel and judgment finality required that the parentage determination remain binding.


Kristine H. v. Lisa R., 37 Cal. 4th 156, 117 P.3d 690 (Cal. 2005)