Man Must Resume Payments in Surrogacy Case

A state appeals court has moved swiftly to resolve the plight of a child born to a surrogate mother but left legally parentless and cut off from child support after the Orange County couple who arranged her birth got divorced.

The 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana ordered the man, John A. Buzzanca, to resume paying child support for 2 1/2-year-old Jaycee Buzzanca--at least until a three-judge panel hears the case.

The court also granted temporary legal custody of the girl to the man’s former wife, Luanne Buzzanca, who has been caring for the child since her birth.

Luanne and John Buzzanca hired a married Northern California woman in 1994 to bear the girl--using anonymous donations of egg and sperm. One month before her birth in March 1995, the husband sought to relieve himself of parental responsibility when he filed for divorce.

The appeals court order reverses--at least during the appellate process--two key rulings issued by Superior Court Judge Robert D. Monarch, who held in August that John Buzzanca no longer had to pay his former wife $386 a month to support Jaycee, and that Luanne Buzzanca was not entitled to be declared the legal mother.

Jeffrey W. Doeringer, a Costa Mesa attorney appointed to represent the little girl, appealed, saying Monarch’s ruling left the toddler legally parentless.

A three-judge appellate panel granted Doeringer’s request to stay the judge’s order and put the case on a fast track for final resolution, a step that could speed the decision by as much as two years.

“My very young client, were she articulate, would undoubtedly express her appreciation,” Doeringer said Wednesday. “Like any child, she is entitled to a loving and responsible parental-child relationship.”

Robert R. Walmsley Jr., who represents Luanne Buzzanca, said his client was “ecstatic.”

Thomas P. Stabile, an attorney for John Buzzanca, said his client was pleased that the justices rejected Doeringer’s request to invalidate Monarch’s decision without further argument.

“In the end, we believe our position is legally the correct one--that the court does not have jurisdiction to make John Buzzanca pay support,” Stabile said.

The case has attracted the attention of lawyers and surrogacy experts across the nation, and the appeals court welcomed legal briefs from other interested parties.

A brief from the California Assn. of Certified Family Law Specialists already has been accepted.

“If John had commissioned cattle to be bred using selected ova and sperm, and rejected them on delivery, leaving them without water or grazing space, he would have been prosecuted for cruelty to animals,” wrote Leslie Ellen Shear, a Sherman Oaks lawyer who serves as a board member of the 529-member strong group.

“That he commissioned the conception of a human being should not free him from the responsibility to the person who was born as the result of his choices. His behavior, and the trial court’s ruling, shock the conscience of the community,” Shear added.