A California man was not permitted to sue his former wife for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court cited public policy, concern for the child, and disapproval of the use of the judicial system to pull a child away from the other parent.

Steve and Wendy began the year 1990 with their marriage ceremony. But within the next two months, Wendy resumed sexual relations with a former lover. In November, she gave birth to a baby girl. The day afterwards, she learned that her former lover was the father of her child. Wendy did not tell Steve the news until the couple filed for divorce, three years later Steve had demanded custody of the baby and Wendy responded that he was not the father.

Wendy allegedly planned to interfere with and sever Steve's bond with the young child. The baby, she told him, was conceived as a result of rape. She encouraged Steve to take a blood test, knowing the results would show he was not the father. When she attempted to challenge Steve's paternity in family court, the judge ruled that Steve was entitled to a presumption of paternity and was the child's legal father. The decision was affirmed on appeal. Steve then filed a claim against Wendy, alleging inter alia intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court dismissed the action, and Steve appealed.

The Court held that Steve's claim was barred by public policy discouraging intrafamilial torts, and the adverse risk to the parties' innocent child. The preschooler would be placed in the middle, once again, of warring parents.