Advances in assisted reproductive technology (ART) have begun to diminish the “genetic link in defining parentage.” Increasingly, legislatures and courts are recognizing the importance of “social parents,” who act as parents to children although possessing no genetic link. The author defines lesbian legal theory and then uses this critical method to examine the link, or lack thereof, between genetics and parenthood. Finally, she examines how ART and morphing social patterns are affecting the evolution of American family law.

More sociological than legal in emphasis, this article discusses the comments of respondents to a qualitative study of lesbian parents in the United Kingdom. Respondents discuss routes to conception and involvement of fathers in children’s lives.

K.M. v. E.G. [117 P.3d 673 (Cal. 2005)] is the focus of this discussion of the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA). The author asserts that the court improperly applied the UPA, although she supports the ultimate outcome of the case, in which each lesbian partner was granted the status and duties of a “parent.”

The evolution of same-sex parenting rights in California is given both a historical and a theoretical examination in this article. The Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) and recent decisions by the California Supreme Court receive the bulk of attention: Elisa B. v. Superior Court [117 P.3d 660 (Cal. 2005)]; K.M. v. E.G. [117 P.3d 673 (Cal. 2005)]; and Kristine H. v. Lisa R. [117 P.3d 690 (Cal. 2005)].

Former partners of lesbians who choose to become parents through alternative insemination may be required to provide child support under varying legal theories, including estoppel and conflicts with public policy. Scenarios are presented through close examination of four court opinions: Elisa B. v. Superior Court [117 P. 3d 660 (Cal. 2005)]; Kristine H. v. Lisa Ann R. [117 P.3d 690 (Cal. 2005)]; L.S.K. v. H.A.N. [813 A.2d 827 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002)]; and T.F. v. B.L. [813 N.E. 2d 1244 (Mass. 2004)]. After a survey of the case law landscape, the author offers “precautionary measures for same-sex parents” that may protect the interests of their children.

This rich legal history of same-sex parenting in America is punctuated by detailed analysis of significant cases from around the country. A traditional approach is presented in Nancy S. v. Michele G. [279 Cal. Rptr. 212 (Ct. App. 1991)], while a third-party treatment of same-sex coparents appears in five cases: In Re Olivia H. [101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 364 (Ct. App. 2000)]; In Re E.L.M.C. [100 P.3d 546 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004)]; In Re H.S.H.-K. [533 N.W. 2d 419 (Wis. 1995)]; E.N.O. v. L.M.M. [711 N.E. 2d 886 (Mass. 1999)]; and T.B. v. L.R.M. [786 A.2d 913 (Pa. 2001)]. Judicial recognition of same-sex coparenthood occurs in two analyzed cases: V.C. v. M.J.B. [748 A.2d 539 (N.J. 2000)] and In Re L.B. [122 P.3d 161 (Wash. 2005)]. Assisted reproduction cases involving same-sex parents include: Rubano v. DiCenzo [759 A.2d 959 (R.I. 2000)] and Elisa B. v. Superior Court [117 P.3d 660 (Cal. 2005)]. Enforcement of child support obligations in alternative insemination circumstances is discussed in Kristine H. v. Lisa R. [117 P.3d 690 (Cal. 2005)]. In addition to these listed cases, which are discussed in detail, several related cases receive passing attention. The article will be especially valuable to attorneys and researchers seeking citations and legal arguments.

This discussion of “the presumption of legitimacy” in parenting cases reveals tensions between some feminist theorists and gay rights advocates. The author suggests an approach to parentage cases that emphasizes genetics and gestation as central to recognition of gender equality. In particular, she examines how a biological emphasis may lead to different treatment for heterosexual and lesbian couples, in opposition to gay male couples, who seek legal recognition as parents of a child.

The California Supreme Court recently decided that the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) encompassed the circumstances of a former lesbian couple who had conceived a child through alternative insemination. The unnamed author suggests that the court should have declined to extend the UPA as this would have alerted the legislature that the UPA needs reformation to address current family structures.