In re Marriage of Moschetta (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1218, rejected the application of Family Code section 7611, subdivision (d), to determine maternity in a wife who had no biological connection to the child because, in the court's view, the presumption applied only to determine biological parentage. In that case, the child was biologically related to the husband but not the wife. ( 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 1223.) In the dissolution proceeding, both the wife and the surrogate sought to establish parental rights. (Ibid.) The trial court declared the surrogate as the child's mother. ( Id. at p. 1224.) On appeal, the husband sought to enforce the surrogacy agreement, but the court declined to do so because it was incompatible with the Act and adoption laws. 30 (In re Marriage of Moschetta, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1227-1231.) The court also rejected the husband's argument that his wife was a presumed mother under section 7611, subdivision (d), because it was indisputable that the surrogate was the biological mother. ( 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 1226.) The court concluded that the wife could not hold the child out as her natural child because, "there never was any doubt that the child has no biological, natural or genetic connection with the wife." (Ibid.) The court reasoned that section 7611, subdivision (d), has no application in surrogacy cases because it is rooted in the old law of illegitimacy and has been retained to settle questions of biological parenthood. It concluded, "the statutory presumption is inapplicable because of the absence of doubt as to the identity of the natural mother. There is no question of biological parenthood to settle. Unlike the context of illegitimacy from which the presumption arose, in surrogacy there is no need to resort to presumptions. All parties know who gave birth and who is genetically related to whom." ( 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 1226.)