5 Cal. 4th 84, 851 P.2d 776, 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 494 (Cal. 1993)
Johnson v. Calvert is the seminal California Supreme Court decision that resolved, for the first time in that state, the clash between gestational and genetic motherhood in the context of gestational surrogacy.
When a child is conceived through gestational surrogacy using the intended mother's ovum and the intended father's sperm, is the child's natural mother the gestational carrier who gives birth or the genetic/intended mother who supplied the ovum, and is the gestational surrogacy agreement enforceable under California law?
Under California's Uniform Parentage Act, maternity may be established by birth or by genetic consanguinity. Where genetic and gestational motherhood reside in different women, the natural mother is the woman who intended to procreate the child—that is, the woman who intended to bring about the birth of a child she intended to raise as her own. Gestational surrogacy agreements that reflect this intent are not per se void as against public policy or the adoption/baby-selling statutes when they compensate the surrogate for gestational services and expenses rather than for surrendering a child.
The California Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Crispina Calvert—the genetic and intended mother—is the child's natural mother, and that the surrogacy agreement is not contrary to public policy. Accordingly, Crispina and Mark Calvert are the child's legal parents, and Anna Johnson, the gestational surrogate, has no parental rights.
Johnson v. Calvert is a cornerstone of assisted reproduction law. It established in California the intent-based test for resolving competing maternity claims when genetics and gestation diverge and validated the enforceability of gestational surrogacy agreements. The case influences later California decisions—including those extending intent principles even when no intended parent has a genetic tie—and informed legislative frameworks governing surrogacy. For law students, it illustrates statutory interpretation in novel technological contexts, the interaction between contract and family law, and how courts balance public policy, constitutional claims, and child welfare in emerging family-formation practices.