A New Definition of Father-in-Law

Most men think of becoming a father as a momentous event.

So it was last week for John Buzzanca, but he didn’t hand out cigars. He got the news that he was a papa not from a joyous wife but a state appeals court. The daughter he doesn’t know and has never lived with is almost 3, but the court told Buzzanca he is now financially obligated to her until she turns 18.

Momentous? The court ordered Buzzanca to continue paying child support to the tune of $386 a month. I’d venture to say it’s a day he’ll never forget.

Buzzanca became a father by signing his name in 1994 to a contract in which he and his then-wife agreed to pay a surrogate to carry an embryo to term for them. The egg and sperm that created the baby came from a woman and a man whose identities remain unknown.

A month before the baby’s birth, Buzzanca filed for divorce from his wife, Luanne. He has contended that he has no paternal responsibility because of the divorce and because neither he nor his wife had a biological link to the child. One of his arguments has been that his ex-wife, who has raised the baby since her birth, is not the legal mother and should go through adoption procedures if she wants to keep the little girl.

That argument lands with something of an ethical clunk, and Thomas Stabile, the Orange attorney representing John Buzzanca, acknowledges the skepticism. He concedes he and his client are “on the unpopular side of the whole thing,” but thinks the appeals court was wrong in establishing Buzzanca’s paternal responsibility.

“People don’t know all the underlying facts, the facts

dealing with the representations made to John [by his ex-wife] which induced him to sign this contract,” Stabile says.

“He was never one who was interested that much in having children. That was even more significant as the marriage floundered. That’s why he told [his ex-wife] in no uncertain terms that he didn’t want to have responsibility in raising the child. A little child was just not in the cards for him. [His ex-wife] beseeched, begged and implored him to work with her on the whole scenario. He reluctantly did.”

In that sense, Buzzanca was no different from untold numbers of men who have a child because their wives want one. But those husbands are legally responsible for the child. The appeals court ruled that Buzzanca, by agreeing to the surrogacy, is just as responsible.

“Even though neither Luanne nor John are biologically related to [the child], they are still her lawful parents given their initiating role as the intended parents in her conception and birth,” Appellate Judge David G. Sills wrote last week. “[The child] never would have been born had not Luanne and John both agreed to have a fertilized egg implanted in a surrogate.”

Still, John Buzzanca’s argument was good enough to convince Orange County Superior Court Judge Robert D. Monarch, who last year absolved Buzzanca of financial responsibility. Perhaps over-thinking the matter, though, Monarch ruled that the child had, in effect, no parents. Not even the Immaculate Conception ended with that result, but that’s how Monarch saw it.

The appeals court that overturned Monarch last week made it sound like this was an easy call to make.

That was my first reaction too. John Buzzanca helped set the wheels in motion, and he shares responsibility for the child.

Then, perhaps like Judge Monarch, I started thinking too much.

I conjured this scenario of a couple we can call the Smiths:

Their marriage is breaking up, but, at 40, Mrs. Smith desperately wants a baby. She cannot have children of her own and fears that as a single woman after the impending divorce, she may be disadvantaged when it comes to adopting a child. Nor can she be confident of marrying again.

So she asks her soon-to-be former husband for one last favor. Would he, for the sole purpose of helping her get a child, sign a surrogacy agreement with her? She is financially secure and the only thing missing in her life, she says, is a child. She tells him he would not have to help support the child.

The soon-to-be ex-husband still has strong feelings for his wife and knows she would make an excellent mother. He knows that a co-signed surrogacy agreement would greatly enhance her chances of getting a baby. In fact, it may be her last, best chance. He knows there are millions of single parents and is confident the child would have a good home.

He signs the agreement, his wife gets the baby, and they follow through on their divorce.

Under the appellate court’s ruling, that man is the baby’s legal father if child support were ever to become an issue. Regardless of how noble a gesture he thought he was making toward his ex-wife, he becomes a deadbeat dad if he balks at paying.

The appeals court ruling had made such perfect sense to me. In my scenario, however, Mr. Smith seems much less villainous and his legal and ethical responsibility less clear.

All I could say with certainty is what I’d advise any man to do who finds himself in the position of my fictional Mr. Smith:

Just say no.

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach Parsons by calling (714) 966-7821, by writing to him at The Times Orange County Edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or by e-mail at dana.parsons@latimes.com.