In a case that has drawn national attention because of the multiplicity of issues it raises in surrogacy cases, a California Court of Appeal ruled today that a man and woman who contracted with a surrogate mother are the child's legal parents, even though the baby was born after the couple divorced.

The ACLU of Southern California had filed an amicus on behalf of the wife, Luanne Buzzanca, to ensure her legal status as the mother of the child, whom she has raised since birth and is now two years old.

The ACLU hailed the ruling as a victory for parents and children. "The court said it best," said ACLU/SC staff attorney Taylor Flynn. "The Buzzancas brought this child into the world. Mr. Buzzanca cannot claim that he is not responsible simply because technology made it possible for him to have a child using sperm and egg donation. Biological ties are not the exclusive definition of a family."

In overturning the Superior Court ruling from last September, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District said, in part, "The trial court then reached an extraordinary conclusion: Jaycee had no lawful parents. . . We disagree. Let us get right to the point: Jaycee would never have been born had not Luanne and John both agreed to have a fertilized egg implanted in a surrogate."

The Court of Appeal sent the case back to the Superior Court ordering the lower court to declare Luanne the lawful mother and giving her legal custody of her daughter. The Court also ordered the lower court to declare John Buzzanca the legal father and to establish appropriate permanent child support from him for his daughter.

The matter began when the Buzzancas engaged the services of a reproductive agency in 1994. The surrogate mother was implanted with a sperm and an egg from anonymous donors. The Buzzanca's are not the biological parents of their daughter. The couple divorced a month before their daughter was born in 1995.

Mr. Buzzanca sought to waive all responsibility for the child, and asked the Superior Court to declare that neither he nor his ex-wife were the legal parents of the baby girl. Last September Superior Court Judge Robert Monarch agreed with Mr. Buzzanca and ruled that the daughter, Jaycee, had no parents. Today's ruling overturns that decision.

The California Court of Appeal today issued a decision allowing an Open Meeting Act lawsuit against the U.C. Regents and the Governor to go forward. The Court also said there is information to support plaintiffs' claim that the Governor and Regents broke the law.

The ACLU and a coalition of groups contend that Governor Wilson violated the Bagley Keene Open Meeting Act by secretly locking up the votes of a majority of Regents prior to the July 20, 1995 meeting at which the Board voted to approve resolutions abolishing affirmative action at the University. Plaintiffs allege that Governor Wilson locked up the vote through a series of private phone conversations prior to the meeting. Such conduct, if proven, would violate the Open Meeting Act.

After plaintiffs filed their suit in February 1996, the Governor and Regents sought to have plaintiffs' lawsuit thrown out on procedural grounds. The trial court refused to do so, and the Court of Appeal's decision today affirms that ruling. This decision allows the plaintiffs, the UCSB student newspaper reporter Tim Molloy, and the UCSB student newspaper, The Nexus, to proceed with their claim seeking a declaration that Governor Wilson and the Regents violated the Open Meeting Act. Plaintiff will be allowed to obtain information and take depositions regarding the Governor's and Regents' alleged wrongdoing.

The decision also protects the ability of citizens and newspapers to challenge official wrongdoing in the future. This court's decision does not allow plaintiff Tim Molloy to obtain a remedy of nullification, because his suit was filed after the 30 day statute of limitation for obtaining nulification had run. However, the Court did say that, "Objective facts, of which he was aware within the 30day filing period, supported his claim that a violation had occurred." The Court also held that Open Meeting Act plaintiffs who file suit within 30 days, and then investigate the potential wrongdoing, will be protected from malicious prosecution actions.

"Today's ruling is a victory for the public's right to know" said ACLU attorney Dan Tokaji. "It will allow the Daily Nexus and Mr. Molloy, at long last, to get to the bottom of the secret conversations that occurred prior to the Regents' antiaffirmative action vote. For over a year and a half, the Governor and Regents have adamantly resisted our attempts to uncover this information. The decision today means that Governor Wilson and the Regents will have to stop stonewalling, and disclose information that should have been disclosed to the public months ago. The Court's decision also makes clear that there is good reason to believe that the Governor and Regents broke the law."

Plaintiffs will proceed with their motion to compel the Regents to answer questions under oath about their efforts to lock in the vote on affirmative action during premeeting telephone conversations with Governor Wilson and each other. A motion to compel was filed before the Court of Appeal decided to hear this case.

The Orange County Council of the Boy Scouts of America was ordered late yesterday afternoon to consider Michael and William Randall's applications to become Eagle Scouts, Scouting's highest honor. In 1991, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California successfully brought suit to reinstate the twin boys, then 9 years old, after they were dismissed from Scouting for refusing to take an oath to God. The boys, who do not consider themselves to be atheists, explain that they do not understand what the word God means to them and thus do not feel comfortable taking an oath. After a trial in 1992, the Superior Court of Orange County held that the Orange County Council had discriminated against the boys on the basis of their religious beliefs in violation of California's civil rights statute, known as the Unruh Act.

Michael and William have been active members in Scouting for the past 9 years and were selected to be members of the equivalent of Scouting's Ahonor society,@ the Order of the Arrow, to which less than 5% of all Scouts belong. They submitted their completed application last year, but the Orange County Council refused to consider the boys' applications. Late yesterday afternoon, after hearing argument from both sides, Superior Court Judge Frazee ordered that the boys' applications be heard no later than March 15, 1998.

Michael and William are thrilled that the Court recognizes that they deserve to be treated with the same respect and dignity as the other boys in their troop,@ said Taylor Flynn, staff attorney of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. AThese boys have worked so hard in fact, Michael and William were the first boys in their troop to achieve the rank of `Brotherhood' in a decade. They are model Scouts, Flynn said.

The California Supreme Court heard the oral argument for this case on January 5, 1998, along with the case of the former Eagle Scout, Timothy Curran, who was expelled from Scouting after the Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts learned that he was gay. The ACLU represented Timothy Curran in that case as well, Curran v. Mount Diablo Council, Boy Scouts of America. A decision in both cases is expected from the California Supreme Court by early April.

Michael and William continue to participate in Scouting pursuant to the Superior Court's 1992 order. Their Eagle applications should have been heard nearly 2 months ago, in early January. AEvery day that passes in which the boys' applications are not considered is another day of discrimination,@ Flynn said. AMy understanding is that, in the history of Michael and William's troop, the rank of Eagle has been conferred on every boy who has applied for it. We also know that the Orange County Council has conferred the rank of Eagle on an openly agnostic Scout. But the fear, of course, is that once Michael and William's Eagle board is held, it will simply be a `Kangaroo Court' in which their applications are summarily denied. We certainly hope that Scouting will live up to its own credo and act with honor by considering the boys' applications without prejudice.