In In re Marriage of Buzzanca (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1410, the husband of a couple who arranged for a surrogate mother to be implanted with an embryo genetically unrelated to either one of the couple disclaimed parentage of the child. The Buzzanca court also applied the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) in a gender-neutral fashion, stating that the wife was "situated like a husband in an artificial insemination case whose consent triggers a medical procedure which results in a pregnancy and eventual birth of a child. Her motherhood may therefore be established 'under this part,' by virtue of that consent." (Id. at p. 1421.) The married couple agreed to have a fertilized embryo--genetically unrelated to either one of them--implanted in a surrogate. ( Id. at p. 1412.) The court held that the husband and wife were the child's mother and father by construing the artificial insemination statute in the Act ( 7613, subd. (a)), in a gender-neutral manner, to apply to both the husband and to the wife, and by looking to the parties' intent to create a child. ( 61 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1421-1428.) Had the court not done so, the child would have been a legal orphan. Buzzanca presented unique facts. While awaiting the birth of their child by way of a surrogate mother, the husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, asserting that there were no children of the marriage. ( Buzzanca, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 1413.) The wife responded that they were expecting a child, who was born six days later. (Ibid.) The trial court determined that the wife was not the legal mother because she did not give birth and was not biologically related to the child. It further concluded that the husband was not the father because he also had no biological connection to the child. ( Id. at p. 1412, 1413-1414.) Relying on Family Code section 7613, subdivision (a), the Buzzanca court disagreed and held that even though the husband and wife were not biologically related to the child, they were her legal parents. ( Buzzanca, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1421-1428.) Although section 7613, subdivision (a), determines paternity, the court construed the statute to determine both paternity and maternity because the husband and the wife had consented to the surrogacy. ( 61 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1415-1421.) The Buzzanca court supported its construction of section 7613, subdivision (a), by also relying on the parties' intent to become parents, their consent to a medical procedure that resulted in the birth of the child, and their initiation of the surrogacy agreement in order to cause the birth of a child. ( Buzzanca, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1412-1413.) The focus on the parties' intent was based on Johnson, supra, 5 Cal.4th 84. In that case, our Supreme Court had to resolve a parentage dispute between two mothers, a genetic mother and surrogate mother. Because two women qualified as a natural mother under the Act, the court looked at the parties' intention as manifested in the surrogacy agreement. ( Id. at pp. 93-95.) The "tie" was broken in favor of the genetic mother because "she who intended to bring about the birth of a child that she intended to raise as her own--is the natural mother under California law." ( Id. at p. 93 .) The Buzzanca court concluded that this intent-based analysis "was not limited to just Johnson-style contests between a woman who gave birth and a woman who contributed ova, but to any situation where a child would not have been born ' "but for the efforts of the intended parents." ( 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 1425.) In sum, in In re Marriage of Buzzanca (1998) a husband and wife "agreed to have an embryo genetically unrelated to either of them implanted in a woman--a surrogate--who would carry and give birth to the child for them," and a surrogacy agreement was memorialized in writing after the embryo was implanted. (Buzzanca, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1412, 1414.) Before the child was born, the husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, asserting there were no children of the marriage. The wife responded that they were expecting a child by way of surrogate contract, and the child was born six days later. (Id. at p. 1413.) "No bona fide attempt was made to establish the surrogate as the lawful mother." (Id. at p. 1421, fn. omitted.) Citing section 7613, Buzzanca held that the husband and wife were the lawful parents of the child even though neither one of them was biologically related to the child. (Buzzanca, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1417-1428.) Section 7613 treats a husband as the natural father of a child if the husband's wife is artificially inseminated with another man's sperm under supervision of a licensed physician and with the husband's written consent. By analogy, Buzzanca concluded that the couple's consent to the creation of a child via the surrogacy agreement made them the legal parents of the child, who would not have been born but for the husband's and wife's intention to become parents and their initiation of the surrogacy agreement. (Id. at pp. 1412-1413, 1418, 1425-1426, 1428.) Section 7613 states in pertinent part: "(a) If, under the supervision of a licensed physician and surgeon and with the consent of her husband, a wife is inseminated artificially with semen donated by a man not her husband, the husband is treated in law as if he were the natural father of a child thereby conceived. The husband's consent must be in writing and signed by him and his wife. The physician and surgeon shall certify their signatures and the date of the insemination, and retain the husband's consent as part of the medical record, where it shall be kept confidential and in a sealed file. However, the physician and surgeon's failure to do so does not affect the father and child relationship."