Judges Wade Into ‘Extraordinary’ Surrogacy Case

Acknowledging that they were delving into uncharted legal territory, three justices Monday began to determine whether a man must pay child support to his ex-wife for a 2-year-old girl who was born to a surrogate.

In deciding the question, a panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal also must determine whether the man’s ex-wife can be declared the child’s legal mother, even though she bears no biological ties to the girl and didn’t give birth to her.

At the heart of the case is Jaycee Louise Buzzanca, a toddler with blue eyes and reddish hair. She was conceived after John and Luanne Buzzanca hired a surrogate in 1994 to bear them a child using anonymous donations of egg and sperm.

But one month before her birth, in March 1995, John Buzzanca filed for divorce.

Last August, Orange County Superior Court Judge Robert D. Monarch agreed with John Buzzanca, ruling that he was not liable for child support and that his ex-wife was “not entitled to be declared the legal mother of . . . Jaycee, at this time.”

On Monday, the justices heard oral arguments in the appeal of Monarch’s ruling by attorneys for Luanne Buzzanca and the child.

The justices asked John Buzzanca’s attorney, Thomas P. Stabile of Orange, why his client should not be held responsible, since he signed the surrogacy contract that led to Jaycee’s birth.

“If I order a load of firewood and it’s delivered, I can’t say I’m not going to pay for it,” said David G. Sills, the court’s presiding justice, who has written two groundbreaking opinions involving surrogacy.

Sills has described the Buzzanca dispute as the “most extraordinary surrogacy case to date.”

Stabile said California law recognizes only the surrogate as the child’s legal mother, even though Luanne Buzzanca, a Santa Ana resident, has been caring for Jaycee since her birth.

But what happens when, as in this case, Sills asked, the surrogate doesn’t want the child? Should taxpayers then have to support Jaycee? Yes, Stabile answered. “That’s exactly my position.”

For Luanne Buzzanca to be declared the mother, she would have to adopt the child as a single parent, Stabile said.

Luanne Buzzanca’s attorney, Robert Walmsley, said she should not have to adopt the girl, because she is the girl’s mother. Also, he said, doing so would relieve her former husband of child support obligations.

Stabile also argued that Luanne Buzzanca assured his client that he would not be held responsible for child support.

Justice Edward Wallin also asked why John Buzzanca had signed the surrogacy contract if, as Stabile contended, he was planning to end the marriage.

Said Stabile: “I can’t respond whether or not Mr. Buzzanca’s choice was a smart one.”

During Stabile’s argument, Luanne Buzzanca, who sat in the front row, shook her head. John Buzzanca, a Costa Mesa resident, was not present.

The appeals court has ordered John Buzzanca to continue paying $386 in monthly support to his ex-wife pending a decision. The court also has granted temporary legal custody of the child to Luanne Buzzanca.

The panel is expected to decide the support case by April 26, the day Jaycee will celebrate her third birthday.