## Facts

- Steven S. and Deborah D. were never married and agreed Steven would provide semen for Deborah’s physician-assisted artificial insemination.
- A first insemination resulted in a pregnancy that did not go to term.
- The parties later had a sexual relationship for several months, but no pregnancy resulted from intercourse.
- After the sexual relationship ended, Deborah underwent physician-assisted artificial insemination using Steven’s previously provided semen, resulting in the conception and birth of Trevor.
- The trial court heard conflicting evidence on whether conception occurred by intercourse or insemination, and found as a fact that Trevor was conceived by artificial insemination.
- Steven remained involved during the pregnancy and in Trevor’s life for the first several years.
- When Trevor was about three, Steven filed a petition to establish a parental relationship and be declared Trevor’s legal father.
- Deborah opposed, relying on Family Code § 7613(b), which treats a semen donor for physician-assisted insemination of a woman other than the donor’s wife as not the natural father.

## Issues

1. Whether Family Code § 7613(b) bars adjudicating a semen donor as the natural father when the child was conceived by physician-assisted artificial insemination of an unmarried woman.
2. Whether equitable estoppel or public policy can be used to prevent the mother from invoking § 7613(b) and to establish the donor’s paternity.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s paternity adjudication and remanded.
- Because the child was found to have been conceived by physician-assisted artificial insemination using Steven’s donated semen, § 7613(b) required treating Steven as not the natural father.
- The trial court erred by refusing to apply § 7613(b) based on public policy and equitable considerations.
- Equitable estoppel could not be applied to defeat the statute’s explicit rule of nonpaternity.

## Legal Principles

- When the elements of Family Code § 7613(b) are satisfied (semen provided to a licensed physician for artificial insemination of a woman who is not the donor’s wife, and conception results), the donor is treated in law as if he were not the natural father.
- Courts must apply § 7613(b) according to its clear terms; judicially created exceptions based on intent, conduct, or fairness are not permitted absent legislative authorization.
- Equitable estoppel cannot be used to nullify an express statutory policy choice regarding parentage in physician-assisted artificial insemination.
- A prior sexual relationship between the donor and the mother does not alter § 7613(b)’s operation if conception occurred through the qualifying artificial insemination.

## Conclusion

The court held that Family Code § 7613(b) establishes a mandatory rule of nonpaternity for qualifying sperm donors in physician-assisted artificial insemination of an unmarried woman, and neither public policy nor equitable estoppel can be used to adjudicate the donor as the child’s natural father when conception occurred by that method.


Steven S. v. Deborah D., 127 Cal. App. 4th 319, 25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 482 (Ct. App. 2005)