In Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, the California Supreme Court permitted a mother to recover emotional distress damages under a direct victim theory after the negligent delivery of her child because "mother established a physician-patient relationship with defendant physician for medical care which was directed not only to her, but also to her fetus. . . . Moreover, during pregnancy and delivery it is axiomatic that any treatment for the baby necessarily implicated mother's participation since access to the baby could only be accomplished with mother's consent and with impact to her body." (Burgess, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 1076.) In so holding, the Burgess court was not asked to address whether the father could also recover as a direct victim. Nonetheless, in dicta, the court observed that, with respect to recovery of emotional distress damages when a child is negligently injured during prenatal care and birth, "the physician-patient relationship critical to a mother's cause of action is almost always absent in a father's claim. It, therefore, appears that a father must meet the criteria for bystanders set forth in Thing v. La Chusa (1989), if he is to state a viable claim." (Burgess, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 1078, fn. 8.)