Man Appeals Judgment in Surrogate Case

A Costa Mesa man who hired a surrogate to bear him a baby and then disavowed any connection to the child asked the California Supreme Court on Monday to overturn an appeals court decision that had made him the youngster’s legal father and responsible for her support.

Attorneys for the man, John A. Buzzanca, said last month’s ruling by a Santa Ana appellate panel undermines state adoption safeguards because it could allow babies to be “commissioned” for people unsuitable to become parents.

“People who don’t qualify to adopt children can pay their money and have one made for them,” said Marjorie G. Fuller, an attorney for Buzzanca. “This model of purchase and sale violates our system of values regarding parents and children.”

If the Supreme Court justices vote to review the ruling, it will mean that Jaycee Louise Buzzanca, who will celebrate her third birthday Monday, will continue her life of legal limbo.

Jaycee’s birth was arranged in 1994 by John and Luanne Buzzanca, a paralegal and dog trainer, respectively.

The couple, who were unable to have children, hired a surrogate, Pamela Snell of Northern California, to bear them a child using egg and sperm from anonymous donors.

A month before Jaycee’s birth, the would-be father filed for divorce, denying any financial responsibility for the child. In Superior Court, John Buzzanca won a ruling that he was not the legal father under California law, and was therefore not liable for the girl’s support.

Because Luanne Buzzanca had no biological ties to the infant and had not legally adopted her, the Superior Court judge also found that she was not legally the mother--a decision that stood until it was overturned by the appeals court.

The issue of Jaycee’s parentage became even more tangled at one point, when Snell filed court papers seeking custody of the girl. Snell contended that she had agreed to deliver the child to a happily married couple, not the people battling over divorce and parentage. Snell later withdrew her claim.

In papers filed with the state high court, Fuller argued that Snell and her husband, Randy Snell, were Jaycee’s legal parents because the child was born to them. The couple cannot simply renounce their responsibility for Jaycee unless they place her for adoption, Fuller said.

“Randy and Pamela should have no more right to remove themselves from parental responsibility without legal process than do any other . . . legal parents,” Fuller said.

Fuller said adoption laws would have required that the Buzzancas undergo psychological and other examinations to determine whether they were likely to be good parents.

The three-judge panel of the Santa Ana appeals court rejected that reasoning last month when it ruled that in some surrogacy cases, intent was more important than a biological relationship.

In making its ruling, the court relied on a California law that holds that a husband who consents to the artificial insemination of his wife is responsible for that child.

“The fact that Luanne did not give birth is irrelevant,” wrote David G. Sills, the presiding justice. “Luanne is [akin to] a husband in an artificial insemination case whose consent triggers a medical procedure which results in a pregnancy and eventual birth of a child.”

The appeals court’s decision reversed the Superior Court decision that left Jaycee without legal parents. The panel ordered John Buzzanca to continue paying child support until Jaycee is 18. Jaycee is living with Luanne Buzzanca.

Law experts said the ruling was the most favorable yet for infertile couples who choose to have children through surrogates.

Jeffrey W. Doeringer, an attorney for Jaycee, said Monday he was dismayed that John Buzzanca had decided to appeal the panel’s ruling.

“It’s time for my client to get on with her life,” Doeringer said. “Having these legal matters hanging over her head is tragic. I’m disappointed that John is spending money hiring attorneys when he could have supported Jaycee with these funds.”

Doeringer said he hopes the California Supreme Court rejects John Buzzanca’s request.

But Scott A. Altman, associate dean of USC Law School, said he believes the high court should review the case--but not for the reasons expressed by the man’s attorney.

Altman said he believes the appeals court’s reasoning could lead to a future argument that surrogate mothers have the same rights as sperm donors.

“I find this worrisome,” Altman said. “A sperm donor invests a minimal amount of time, a minimal amount of risk. There’s little if any bond to the child. Whereas we know that pregnancy and childbirth often bring changes of the heart.”

In her brief, Fuller told the high court justices that the Buzzanca case provides them with an opportunity to articulate clear guidelines for the thousands of people who create children by reproductive technology.

She referred to cases in which “women have given birth to their own grandchildren, dead men have become fathers, [and] . . . because of laboratory mistakes, several women, both black and white, have delivered children of races different from their own.”

“There must be a consistent system of laws, as our society hurls toward technological advances unheard of in this millennium, so that no child . . . shall ever be declared as parentless, nor go without protection of the law.”