## Facts

- A minor child (through a guardian ad litem) and the child’s mother, Roni L., filed a paternity action against Stephen K.
- Stephen admitted paternity.
- Stephen filed a cross-complaint against Roni for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence.
- Stephen alleged Roni falsely stated she was taking birth control pills, and that he relied on that statement when engaging in intercourse, resulting in the birth of an unwanted child.
- Stephen sought damages for financial support obligations and emotional distress, and also sought punitive damages.
- Roni moved for judgment on the pleadings; the trial court treated the motion as a general demurrer, sustained it without leave to amend, and dismissed the cross-complaint.
- Stephen appealed from the dismissal.

## Issues

1. Between two consenting sexual partners, may one partner recover in tort for the birth of a child conceived after relying on the other partner’s alleged misrepresentation that contraception had been used?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of dismissal.
- The court held that the alleged conduct did not give rise to tort liability for the birth of the child.
- The court declined to recognize a novel tort theory imposing damages based on contraceptive representations within a consensual sexual relationship.
- The court concluded that the claimed harms (child-support obligations and emotional distress from an “unwanted” birth) were not cognizable tort damages in this setting.

## Legal Principles

- Courts will not create a new tort cause of action absent statutory or established judicial authority, particularly where recognition would carry broad policy consequences.
- Tort law generally will not impose liability between consenting sexual partners for pregnancy and childbirth resulting from consensual intercourse, even if one partner allegedly misrepresented contraceptive use.
- Public policy and privacy interests weigh against judicial regulation of intimate sexual decisions and contraceptive practices through damages actions.
- Because pregnancy is a known risk of sexual intercourse and both partners can take precautions, courts may treat attempts to shift all resulting responsibility to the other partner as inconsistent with the nature of consensual sexual activity.
- A parent’s duty to support a child is a legal obligation, not an “injury” recoverable as damages from the other parent through tort theories of fraud or negligence in this context.

## Conclusion

The court refused to recognize tort liability for a child’s conception and birth based on one consenting partner’s alleged misrepresentation about contraception, affirming dismissal of claims seeking to treat child-support obligations and related emotional distress as compensable damages.


Stephen K. v. Roni L., 105 Cal. App. 3d 640 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980)