Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugee
You know, that was a stupid post (mine, not yours). I wasn't thinking so much of a claim but of who actually might be the biological father of the children (and whether he or they even knew) and who would have rights if the 3rd one wasn't really his biological child, he wasn't married to the biological mother and didn't adopt the baby.
Mostly I was just being stoopid. It goes right along with asking someone this morning if today was the 31st.
|
I don't think it was a stupid question. "The donor of semen provided to a licensed physican and surgeon for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor's wife is treated in law as if he were not the natural father of a child thereby conceived." Cal. Fam. Code s 7613(b). But I think California law uses the term "natural mother" to describe the woman who carried the pregnancy, not who supplied the egg. I wonder if Rowe can have her relinquishment of parental rights declared void as against public policy, because the strong presumption in California is against anything that results in a person having one parent instead of two (outside of adoption, where the worse alternative is zero parents).
