## Facts

- Nancy S. and Michele G. lived together for many years and held a private commitment ceremony.
- The couple jointly planned to have children through artificial insemination of Nancy.
- Nancy gave birth to two children (1980 and 1984); Michele was listed as the “father” on both birth certificates, and the children used Michele’s surname.
- The parties discussed, but never completed, Michele’s adoption of the children.
- After separating in 1985, the parties informally shared physical care and visitation in a manner consistent with ongoing co-parenting.
- Conflict later arose, and Nancy filed an action under the California Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) seeking a determination that she was the only legal parent.
- The trial court declared Nancy the only parent, awarded her sole legal and physical custody, and permitted Michele contact only with Nancy’s consent.

## Issues

1. Whether a nonbiological, nonadoptive former domestic partner of the birth mother can be deemed a “parent” under the UPA based on jointly planning the children, raising them, and being listed on birth certificates.
2. If not a parent, whether the trial court could deny Michele custody or visitation without findings of detriment to the children if placed with Nancy and that awarding custody/visitation to Michele would serve the children’s best interests.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed.
- Michele was not a “parent” under the UPA because she was neither a natural (biological) nor adoptive parent, and the statutory presumptions did not extend to her circumstances.
- Being listed on the birth certificates and functioning as a psychological or de facto parent did not create legal parentage under the UPA.
- As a nonparent, Michele had no entitlement to custody or visitation against a fit legal parent absent the required showing that placement with the parent would be detrimental.

## Legal Principles

- Under the UPA as applied, the legal parent-child relationship is based on natural (birth/biological) or adoptive parentage; courts will not confer legal parent status outside the statute.
- A nonbiological partner’s participation in conception planning, childrearing, and family presentation (including a birth certificate designation) does not establish legal parentage without an adoption or other statutory basis.
- Equitable theories such as de facto parenthood, psychological parenthood, in loco parentis, or estoppel cannot override statutory requirements for establishing parentage.
- Custody awards favor a fit legal parent; custody or court-ordered contact for a nonparent requires a showing that parental custody would be detrimental and that a nonparent award would serve the child’s best interests.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a judgment declaring the birth mother the sole legal parent and granting her sole custody, holding that the former same-sex partner—though deeply involved in raising the children and listed on their birth certificates—was not a legal parent under the UPA and therefore lacked standing to obtain custody or visitation absent a statutory showing sufficient to displace a fit parent.


Nancy S. v. Michele G., 279 Cal. Rptr. 212 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)