ABSTRACT
Intention is not usually recognised as being of significance in determining issues in Family Law. Giving weight to intention, rather than to biological roles, provides a means to treat claims to parenthood equally, regardless of gender difference. The California Court's reliance on intention may be seen to be as much a recognition of its already established importance in forging a legal relationship between parent and child as an instance of breaking new ground. The Court's reason for preferring the claim of the genetic mother was not a preference for the blood tie, as might perhaps have been thought, and which had formed the basis of the decisions in the lower courts. Basing parenthood on intention implies a preparedness to recognise the free alienability of parental responsibility and hence the acceptability of surrogacy agreements. It comes closer to characterising children more openly as a form of property which can be transferred to others.
