Author: Kristine Kirschke

The Court of Appeal recently issued its written Opinion concerning a San Luis Obispo County Superior Court case in which Herring Imming successfully represented a biological mother and her wife toward protecting their pre-teen daughter. The case, now known as C.C. v. L.B. (24 DJDAR 10911 (11/26/24) (DCA2/6)), affirmed Greg and Ruston’s hard-fought trial court victory.

The facts involved a sperm donor (“donor”) who, shortly following the child’s birth, consented to a final written adoption order. The order (1) added the biological mother’s wife as the child’s second parent and (2) permanently waived the donor’s parenting, financial, and other rights to the child. The order expressly gave the child’s legal parents – the two mothers — but not the donor or the courts, the right to decide whether and with whom their daughter spends her time. Relying on this, the mothers over the years informally allowed the donor significant access to their daughter, and he and she developed a close relationship.

But as their daughter approached her teens, she reported he began acting strangely and abusively. Her reports would shock and alarm any parent. Her mothers protectively stopped the donor’s visits. At least initially, they sought a “time out” to investigate and allow their daughter time to process, heal, and establish some agency.

The donor aggressively responded. He filed suit, asserting “third parent” standing and demanding immediate full access and rights to the child. (California is one of a few states acknowledging third parents including when a partner of one of the biological parents becomes a legal parent through adoption.) As the case threatened to morph into a full-blown trial, the mothers retained Herring Imming.

Greg and Ruston pressed for pre-trial termination through a challenge to the donor’s “standing.” They argued he lacked the legal ability to bring suit in the first place since parenting laws do not allow him to ignore the consequences of the final adoption order including his waivers. The San Luis Obispo County trial court agreed. It dismissed the case, ruling the donor lacked any ability to establish parentage.

When the donor appealed, Herring Imming, with appellate specialist, Claudia Ribet, represented the mothers at the Court of Appeal.

In his thoughtful post-Opinion analysis, retired Judge Hank Goldberg (writing as an outside commentator) suggests, “[p]erhaps C.B. v. L.B holds that … the adoption order … terminates any future claim to custody or visitation.” We think so.

The Opinion has gained attention from same-sex adoptive parents and potential parents – and their considerable network of supporters and advisors. But its scope is not limited to same-sex adoptions. If a biological parent waives all rights through adoption orders absent a post-adoption contact agreement (“PACA”) (as was the case here), those waivers must be respected.

C.C. v. L.B protects the integrity of adoptions by confirming the rights of post-adoptive parents toward managing a donor’s post-waiver access – or not — to their adoptive child.