(a)Except as provided in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 7540) and Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 7570) of Part 2, a presumption under Section 7611 is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted in an appropriate action only by clear and convincing evidence.
(b)If two or more presumptions arise under Section 7611 that conflict with each other, or if one or more presumptions under Section 7611 conflict with a claim by a person identified as a genetic parent
pursuant to Section 7555, the presumption that on the facts is founded on the weightier considerations of policy and logic controls. If one of the presumed parents is also a presumed parent under Section 7540, the presumption arising under Section 7540 may only be rebutted pursuant to Section 7541.
(c)In an appropriate action, a court may find that more than two persons with a claim to parentage under this division are parents if the court finds that recognizing only two parents would be detrimental to the child. In determining detriment to the child, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the harm of removing the child from a stable placement with a parent who has fulfilled the child’s physical needs and the child’s
psychological needs for care and affection, and who has assumed that role for a substantial period of time. A finding of detriment to the child does not require a finding of unfitness of any of the parents or persons with a claim to parentage.
(d)Unless a court orders otherwise after making the determination specified in subdivision (c), a presumption under Section 7611 is rebutted by a judgment establishing parentage of the child by another person.
(e)A person’s offer or refusal to sign a voluntary declaration of parentage may be considered as a factor, but shall not be determinative, as to the issue of legal parentage in a proceeding regarding the establishment or termination of parental rights.
(f)This section shall become operative on January 1, 2020.
Notes of Decisions
San Bernardino Cnty. Child. & Fam. Servs. v. M.G., 7 Cal. App. 5th 886 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “” (Fam. Code, § 7612, subd. (c).) “In determining detriment to the child, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the harm of removing the child from a stable placement with a parent who has fulfilled the child’s physical needs and the…”
Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co., 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 948 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “106 ]); (5) proof to overcome rebuttable presumptions of paternity (Fam. Code, § 7612); (6) establishment of a probate conservatorship ( Conservatorship of Sanderson (1980) 106 Cal.”
Los Angeles Cnty. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. Martin O., 178 Cal. App. 4th 139 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 5× “) Here, the trial court found that appellant had established the presumption under section 7611(d), but that it had been rebutted. The issue is whether appellant’s failure to care for or to provide financial support to his children warrants rebuttal of the presumption of…”
J.R. v. D.P., 212 Cal. App. 4th 374 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012).
“” (Fam. Code, § 7612, subd. (b).) The mother and the other presumed father appeal this ruling.”
Brian C. v. Ginger K., 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 778 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000).
“) Because there are several rebuttable presumptions of natural fatherhood, a separate statute, Family Code section 7612, subdivision (b), deals with the problem of what happens when two or more of the presumptions collide.”
In Re William K., 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 737 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
“Appellant claims that the social worker is "now instructed to alert tribal authorities to make a distinction between `enrollment' in the tribe and `membership in the tribe.”
People v. Vega, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2350 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995).
“Family Code section 7612 makes section 761 l’s presumptions rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence.”
Elizabeth D. v. San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency, 207 Cal. App. 4th 1088 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012).
“(b); Fam. Code, § 7612, subd. (a).) In the event of a “rare case” in which there may be uncertainty about the identity of the mother, the UPA permits a declaratory action on the question of maternity.”
Est. of Earnest Chambers v. Money, 175 Cal. App. 4th 891 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
“(Fam. Code, § 7612, subd. (a).) This was the basis of the probate court’s ruling that respondent raised the required presumption of fatherhood by a preponderance of the evidence, and that appellant did not rebut it by clear and convincing evidence.”
Shasta Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Ronald F., 161 Cal. App. 4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
“Appellant claims that the social worker is “now instructed to alert tribal authorities to make a distinction between ‘enrollment’ in the tribe and ‘membership in the tribe.”
Wehsener v. Jernigan (Cal. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 8× “” (Fam. Code, § 7612, subd. (a), italics added.”
In re Aliyah G. CA2/8 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 7× “” (Fam. Code, § 7612, subd. (a).) “A person who claims entitlement to presumed parent status has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the facts supporting the entitlement.”
— Cal. Family Code § 7612(a) — 2 cases
Los Angeles Cnty. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. Martin O., 178 Cal. App. 4th 139 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
“) Here, the trial court found that appellant had established the presumption under section 7611(d), but that it had been rebutted. The issue is whether appellant’s failure to care for or to provide financial support to his children warrants rebuttal of the presumption of…”
In Re Jo, 178 Cal. App. 4th 139 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.