section 7611 presumption in California

2019(Jesusa V., supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 606; In re A.A. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 771, 788 ; In re Kiana A. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1118 .) Whether the evidence does rebut the presumption depends upon whether rebuttal of the presumption is “appropriate in the circumstances of the case.” (Jesusa V., supra, at p. 606; see In re A.A., supra, at p. 788.) Our Supreme Court has indicated that rebutting a section 7611, subdivision (d) presumption is not appropriate when doing so “will render the child fatherless” (Nicholas H., supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 70 ), or “deprive [the child] of the support of their

2018The Court noted that Nicholas H. had recognized that the " 'social relationship [of a man who has lived with a child and treated him as his child] is much more important, to the child at least, than a biological relationship of actual paternity. ...' " ( Elisa, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 121 , 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 46 , 117 P.3d 660 , quoting In re Nicholas H . ) The Court also relied on In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588 , 604, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 205 , 85 P.3d 2 ), quoting its reasoning that "the statute did not contemplate a reflexive rule that biological paternity would rebut the section 7611 presumpt

2020Law A person is presumed to be the natural parent of a child if the person both receives the child into his or her home and openly holds the child out as his or her natural child. (§ 7611, subd. (d); see fn. 1, ante.) “ ‘ “ ‘[T]he statutory purpose [of section 7611] is to distinguish between those fathers who have entered into some familial relationship with the mother and child and those who have not.’ ” . . . “[T]he premise behind the category of presumed father is that an individual who has demonstrated a commitment to the child and the child’s welfare—regardless of whether he is biological

2020Law A person is presumed to be the natural parent of a child if the person both receives the child into his or her home and openly holds the child out as his or her natural child. (§ 7611, subd. (d); see fn. 1, ante.) “ ‘ “ ‘[T]he statutory purpose [of section 7611] is to distinguish between those fathers who have entered into some familial relationship with the mother and child and those who have not.’ ” . . . “[T]he premise behind the category of presumed father is that an individual who has demonstrated a commitment to the child and the child’s welfare—regardless of whether he is biological

2004(See In re Richard M., supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 795 ; but see also Adoption of Kelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 816, 828-829 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 615 , 823 P.2d 1216 ].) Thus Craig had standing to initiate paternity proceedings under section *46 section 7630, subdivision (b).

2004(See In re Richard M., supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 795 ; but see also Adoption of Kelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 816, 828-829 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 615 , 823 P.2d 1216 ].) Thus Craig had standing to initiate paternity proceedings under section *46 section 7630, subdivision (b).

2020Law A person is presumed to be the natural parent of a child if the person both receives the child into his or her home and openly holds the child out as his or her natural child. (§ 7611, subd. (d); see fn. 1, ante.) “ ‘ “ ‘[T]he statutory purpose [of section 7611] is to distinguish between those fathers who have entered into some familial relationship with the mother and child and those who have not.’ ” . . . “[T]he premise behind the category of presumed father is that an individual who has demonstrated a commitment to the child and the child’s welfare—regardless of whether he is biological

2019(Jesusa V., supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 606; In re A.A. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 771, 788 ; In re Kiana A. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1118 .) Whether the evidence does rebut the presumption depends upon whether rebuttal of the presumption is “appropriate in the circumstances of the case.” (Jesusa V., supra, at p. 606; see In re A.A., supra, at p. 788.) Our Supreme Court has indicated that rebutting a section 7611, subdivision (d) presumption is not appropriate when doing so “will render the child fatherless” (Nicholas H., supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 70 ), or “deprive [the child] of the support of their

2022The statutory scheme mandates that “presumed fatherhood based on a voluntary declaration of paternity is not to be weighed against other section 7611 presumptions.” (Ibid.; Kevin Q. v. Lauren W., supra, 175 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1137 [same]; In re Cheyenne B. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1376 [parentage judgment from a child support proceeding precluded putative presumed father’s section 7611(d) parentage claim]; In re P.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 974 , 981– 982 [balancing required in dependency matter only where there is no preexisting parentage judgment]; Barkaloff v. Woodward (1996) 47 Cal.App.4

2017A If a third parent is not recognized under section 7612, subdivision (c), then a juvenile court generally must weigh the competing presumptions of two or more presumed fathers and determine which one should be recognized as the child's presumed father. (§ 7612, subd. (b); Donovan L ., supra , 244 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1087, 1093-1094, 198 Cal.Rptr.3d 550 .) Section 7612, subdivision (b), provides: "If two or more presumptions arise under Section 7610 or 7611 that conflict with each other, or if a presumption under Section 7611 conflicts with a claim pursuant to Section 7610, the presumption whic

2022The statutory scheme mandates that “presumed fatherhood based on a voluntary declaration of paternity is not to be weighed against other section 7611 presumptions.” (Ibid.; Kevin Q. v. Lauren W., supra, 175 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1137 [same]; In re Cheyenne B. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1376 [parentage judgment from a child support proceeding precluded putative presumed father’s section 7611(d) parentage claim]; In re P.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 974 , 981– 982 [balancing required in dependency matter only where there is no preexisting parentage judgment]; Barkaloff v. Woodward (1996) 47 Cal.App.4

2022As a result, the courts deciding Kevin Q. and Levi H. were required to select a single presumed parent. 6 (Kevin Q., supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 1131 [“How the various Family Code sections are reconciled and prioritized to identify a single presumed father is the subject of our inquiry here.”]; Levi H., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 1287 [“ ‘ “[T]here can be only one presumed father.” ’ ”].) Moreover, former subdivision (c) of section 7612, in effect at the time of both decisions, stated, “The presumption under Section 7611 is rebutted by a judgment establishing paternity of the child by anoth

2022In re Levi H. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1290 , disapproved on other grounds in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 1010, fn. 7, held that a voluntary declaration of parentage, “which has the same force and effect as a paternity judgment,” rebuts a presumption under section 7611, subdivision (d) as a matter of law.

2022As a result, the courts deciding Kevin Q. and Levi H. were required to select a single presumed parent. 6 (Kevin Q., supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 1131 [“How the various Family Code sections are reconciled and prioritized to identify a single presumed father is the subject of our inquiry here.”]; Levi H., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 1287 [“ ‘ “[T]here can be only one presumed father.” ’ ”].) Moreover, former subdivision (c) of section 7612, in effect at the time of both decisions, stated, “The presumption under Section 7611 is rebutted by a judgment establishing paternity of the child by anoth

2014(See Craig L. v. Sandy S. (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 36, 50, 52 [presumption under § 7611, subd. (a) does not necessarily prevail over presumption under subd. (d)].) 3 with the child and hopefully their relationship will continue.

2013In resolving such a conflict, the trial court must at all times be guided by the principle that the goal of our paternity statutes is ‘the protection of the child’s well-being.’” (Craig L. v. Sandy S. (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 36, 52 .) “[T]he trial court must in the end make a determination which gives the greatest weight to [the child’s] well-being.” (Id. at p. 53; J.R. v. D.P., supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 ; see In re Jesusa V. , supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 619.) 10 Section 7612, subdivision (a) provides that with inapplicable exceptions, “a presumption under Section 7611 is a rebuttable presu

2022The statutory scheme mandates that “presumed fatherhood based on a voluntary declaration of paternity is not to be weighed against other section 7611 presumptions.” (Ibid.; Kevin Q. v. Lauren W., supra, 175 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1137 [same]; In re Cheyenne B. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1376 [parentage judgment from a child support proceeding precluded putative presumed father’s section 7611(d) parentage claim]; In re P.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 974 , 981– 982 [balancing required in dependency matter only where there is no preexisting parentage judgment]; Barkaloff v. Woodward (1996) 47 Cal.App.4

2021(See, e.g., In re Cheyenne B. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1371 [“With respect to [the father’s] section 7611, subdivision (d) contention [that he should have been deemed a presumed father], our review of the trial court’s findings is limited to considering whether substantial evidence supports such findings”]; In re A.A. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 771, 782 [“In considering appellants’ challenge to the trial court’s finding that R.B. is not a presumed father . . . we apply the substantial evidence test”].) However, Father had the burden of proof to establish the presumption under Family Code secti

2025(See § 7613, subd. (b); C.M. v. M.C. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1188, 1191-1192 [upholding a trial court determination that the intended father in a gestational surrogacy arrangement was the sole parent of the triplets born because of that agreement]; R.M. v. T.A. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 760, 775 [“case authority reflects that judicial application of the section 7611(d) parentage presumption and the two-parent policy does not seek to impose a two-parent choice to the detriment of a single-parent choice, but rather seeks to further a two-parent familial arrangement that has already been developed in t

2025(See § 7613, subd. (b); C.M. v. M.C. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1188, 1191-1192 [upholding a trial court determination that the intended father in a gestational surrogacy arrangement was the sole parent of the triplets born because of that agreement]; R.M. v. T.A. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 760, 775 [“case authority reflects that judicial application of the section 7611(d) parentage presumption and the two-parent policy does not seek to impose a two-parent choice to the detriment of a single-parent choice, but rather seeks to further a two-parent familial arrangement that has already been developed in t

2019(Jesusa V., supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 606; In re A.A. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 771, 788 ; In re Kiana A. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1118 .) Whether the evidence does rebut the presumption depends upon whether rebuttal of the presumption is “appropriate in the circumstances of the case.” (Jesusa V., supra, at p. 606; see In re A.A., supra, at p. 788.) Our Supreme Court has indicated that rebutting a section 7611, subdivision (d) presumption is not appropriate when doing so “will render the child fatherless” (Nicholas H., supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 70 ), or “deprive [the child] of the support of their

2019(Jesusa V., supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 606; In re A.A. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 771, 788 ; In re Kiana A. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1118 .) Whether the evidence does rebut the presumption depends upon whether rebuttal of the presumption is “appropriate in the circumstances of the case.” (Jesusa V., supra, at p. 606; see In re A.A., supra, at p. 788.) Our Supreme Court has indicated that rebutting a section 7611, subdivision (d) presumption is not appropriate when doing so “will render the child fatherless” (Nicholas H., supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 70 ), or “deprive [the child] of the support of their

2022The statutory scheme mandates that “presumed fatherhood based on a voluntary declaration of paternity is not to be weighed against other section 7611 presumptions.” (Ibid.; Kevin Q. v. Lauren W., supra, 175 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1137 [same]; In re Cheyenne B. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1376 [parentage judgment from a child support proceeding precluded putative presumed father’s section 7611(d) parentage claim]; In re P.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 974 , 981– 982 [balancing required in dependency matter only where there is no preexisting parentage judgment]; Barkaloff v. Woodward (1996) 47 Cal.App.4

2013(See, e.g., Barkaloff v. Woodward (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 393, 399 , [presumption of paternity was rebutted under § 7612 by prior stipulated judgment of paternity by another man]; Kevin Q. v. Lauren W. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1141 , [voluntary declaration of paternity under § 7573 accorded force and effect of a judgment].) Stated another way, a section 7611 presumption is rebutted by a prior judgment because that „judgment acts to preclude the issue of paternity from being redetermined.‟ (In re A.A., supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 789 , italics added.)” (In re P.A., supra, at p. 982.)2 2 To t

2005The issue in In re Raphael P., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at pages 723-736, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 610 , was whether the presumption of section 7611, subdivision (d) could be rebutted by genetic testing showing the man is not the biological father.

2004(Maj. opn., ante, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d at p. 220 , 85 P.3d at p. 15 .) If, as the majority holds, Heriberto's biological paternity was sufficiently established to require its consideration, then it should be considered as the Legislature has directed. [5] The same analysis establishes that proof of biological paternity necessarily rebuts the other nonconclusive presumptions under section 7611, including the presumption under subdivision (d) of that section. [6] These provisions show one additional thing: that the court in In re Raphael P. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 716, 734 , 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 610 , erred

2026Code, § 7612, subd. (c), italics[] added by Stats. 2013, ch. 564, § 6.5.) . . . [Family Code] section 7612, subdivision (c) allows a court to recognize three parents only in ‘rare cases’ where a child truly has more than two parents.” (In re Donovan L. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1086-1087 ; M.Z., supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 64 .) On appeal, we independently interpret statutes but review factual findings regarding parentage under Family Code section 7611 or section 7612 for substantial evidence.

2021However, Joseph is a presumed father under Family Code section 7611, subdivision (a) by virtue of his marriage to mother at the time of the baby’s birth: “A person is presumed to be the natural parent of a child if the person meets … any of the following subdivisions: [¶] (a) The presumed parent and the child’s natural mother are, or have been, married to each other and the child is born during the marriage, ….” “As a general rule, ‘ “there can only be one presumed father.” ’ ” (In re Donovan L. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1086 .) Conflicting presumptions are addressed in Family Code section

2015(In re Jesusa V., supra, at p. 606; In re T.R. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1202 , 1212 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 215 ].) Relevant to the application of the section 7611(d) parentage presumption in cases where it will permit the child to have two parents, the courts have recognized “the value of having two parents, rather than one, as a source of both emotional and financial support . . . .” (Elisa B., supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 123 ; see L.M. v. M.G. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 133, 145-147 [ 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 97 ] (L.M.); Charisma R., supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 374 ; see also Kristine H. v. Lisa R. (2005) 37 Cal.4

2015(In re Jesusa V., supra, at p. 606; In re T.R. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1202 , 1212 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 215 ].) Relevant to the application of the section 7611(d) parentage presumption in cases where it will permit the child to have two parents, the courts have recognized “the value of having two parents, rather than one, as a source of both emotional and financial support . . . .” (Elisa B., supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 123 ; see L.M. v. M.G. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 133, 145-147 [ 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 97 ] (L.M.); Charisma R., supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 374 ; see also Kristine H. v. Lisa R. (2005) 37 Cal.4

2019(Jesusa V., supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 606; In re A.A. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 771, 788 ; In re Kiana A. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1118 .) Whether the evidence does rebut the presumption depends upon whether rebuttal of the presumption is “appropriate in the circumstances of the case.” (Jesusa V., supra, at p. 606; see In re A.A., supra, at p. 788.) Our Supreme Court has indicated that rebutting a section 7611, subdivision (d) presumption is not appropriate when doing so “will render the child fatherless” (Nicholas H., supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 70 ), or “deprive [the child] of the support of their

2011The Act “provides for conclusive and rebuttable presumptions of paternity.” (In re Kiana A. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1113-1114 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 669 ].) The rebuttable presumptions of paternity are set forth in section 7611 and, as relevant here, include a man who “receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his natural child.” (§ 7611, subd. (d).) A presumption under section 7611, subdivision (d), affects “the burden of proof and may be rebutted in an appropriate action only by clear and convincing evidence.” (§ 7612, subd. (a); see In re Nicholas H., supra, 28 Cal.4

2017Taking a position contrary to its position below, Agency argues there is substantial evidence to support the court's finding that B.S. is a presumed father of L.L. under section 7611, subdivision (d). 6 B.S. joins in, and agrees with, Agency's arguments on this issue. *910 A The Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) (§ 7600 et seq.) "provides the framework by which California courts make paternity determinations. (§ 7610, subd. (b).)" *1310 ( Dawn D. v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 932 , 937, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 871 , 952 P.2d 1139 .) Section 7611 sets forth various rebuttable presumptions for determinin

2017Taking a position contrary to its position below, Agency argues there is substantial evidence to support the court's finding that B.S. is a presumed father of L.L. under section 7611, subdivision (d). 6 B.S. joins in, and agrees with, Agency's arguments on this issue. *910 A The Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) (§ 7600 et seq.) "provides the framework by which California courts make paternity determinations. (§ 7610, subd. (b).)" *1310 ( Dawn D. v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 932 , 937, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 871 , 952 P.2d 1139 .) Section 7611 sets forth various rebuttable presumptions for determinin

2022(In re O.S. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1410 ; In re Spencer W. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1647 , 1652–1653.) In contrast to the nature of that presumption under section 7611, subdivision (d), presumed parent status based on a voluntary declaration of parentage is not rebuttable; it reflects a status conferred by operation of law. (§§ 7611, 7612, subd. (a).) In carrying out its duty to attempt to determine the parentage of each child who is the subject of a dependency petition, the juvenile court properly recognized the voluntary declarations of parentage filed by E.H. and M.B. as judgments of par

2011(In re Spencer W. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1647, 1652-1653 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 524 ] (Spencer W.).) If the alleged father establishes this foundation and it is challenged, the statutory presumption may be rebutted in an appropriate action only by clear and convincing evidence. (§7612, subd. (a); T.R., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1210 ; Nicholas H., supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 63 .) An unwed father may also, under narrow circumstances, assert constitutional paternity rights, even though he does not qualify under a statutory presumption under section 7611.

2015(Brian C. v. Ginger K., supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 1221 .) Brian C. concluded the Family Code section 7611(d) presumption of paternity was “the product of one year’s living with the child followed up with visitation after the relationship with the mother ended.” (Ibid.) Brian C. did not address whether a private admission of paternity satisfied the “openly held out” standard.

2015(Brian C. v. Ginger K., supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 1221 .) Brian C. concluded the Family Code section 7611(d) presumption of paternity was “the product of one year’s living with the child followed up with visitation after the relationship with the mother ended.” (Ibid.) Brian C. did not address whether a private admission of paternity satisfied the “openly held out” standard.

2017The appellate court in Jason P., supra, 226 Cal.App.4th 167 , 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 789 , explained why the contrary conclusion would be incorrect by describing a factual scenario similar to the one in the present case.

2015DISCUSSION A. Presumed Father Findings Family Code, section 7611 provides: “A person is presumed to be the natural parent of a child if . . . [¶] . . . [¶] (d) The presumed parent receives the child into his or her home and openly holds out the child as his or her natural child.” (See Jason P. v. Danielle S. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 167, 177-179 .) Further, Family Code section 7612 provides: “(b) If two or more presumptions arise under Section 7610 or 7611 that conflict with each other, or if a presumption under Section 7611 conflicts with a claim pursuant to Section 7610, the presumption which

2013Code, § 7612, subd. (a); In re M.C., supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 212 .) The only rebuttable presumption under Family Code section 7611 at issue here is subdivision (d), which states that the man “receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his natural child.” (Fam.

2013(E.g., Gabriel P. v. Suedi D., supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at pp. 859-860; Michael M. v. Giovanna E, supra, 5 Cal.App.4th 1272 ; cf. In re M.C. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 197, 219 [ 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 856 ].) Section 7612, subdivision (a) provides that with inapplicable exceptions, “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.” Subdivision (b) provides: “If two or more presumptions arise under Section 7610 or 7611 that conflict with each other, ... the presumption which on the

2012(Jesusa V., supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 606.) “[I]n cases involving competing presumptions under section 7611, the trial court must identify the presumption ‘which on the facts is founded on the weightier considerations of policy and logic.’ ” (Gabriel P., supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 864 , quoting § 7612, subd. (b).) This is an issue entrusted to the trial court’s discretion.

2009(Gabriel P v. Suedi D. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 850, 858, 862 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 437 ] (Gabriel P.); In re Mary G., supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at pp. 197-201; In re Liam L., supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at pp. 742-743, 745, 746 [appellate court affirmed judgment in dependency proceeding that the defendant “was a presumed father based solely on a voluntary declaration of paternity” and stated the “statutory language is clear and unambiguous”; however, appellate court did not specifically comment on lower court’s “ ‘public policy balancing of the two fathers’ under section 7612, subdivision (b)”].) In Barkalof

2023(In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 451 .) A biological father, on the other hand, has no parental rights to custody or services, but may be offered such services if the court finds it would benefit the child. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) There is another paternal status, relevant here, under Kelsey S. “Kelsey S.” refers to an unwed biological father who does not satisfy the paternity presumptions under 6 Family Code section 7611,3 but who nevertheless promptly came forward after learning of the pregnancy and demonstrated a full commitment to his parental responsibilities.

2002See Comino v. Kelley (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 678, 686, fn. 10 , 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 728 , questioning but not deciding whether a negative blood test of one man is the equivalent of an affirmative judicial declaration of paternity by another man. [26] Dawn D. v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 932, 937 , 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 871 , 952 P.2d 1139 [section 7611 creates a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof in actions to establish paternity]. [27] Kelsey S., 1 Cal.4th at p. 823, fn. 3 , 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 615 , 823 P.2d 1216 ; emphasis added. [28] Zacharia D., 6 Cal.4th at p. 450, fn. 18 , 24 Cal.R

2022(In re J.O. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 139 , 147, abrogated on other grounds by In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622 .) If the presumption under section 7611(d) is established, it “may be rebutted in an appropriate action only by clear and convincing evidence.” (Fam Code, § 7612, subd. (a).) Where, as here, the juvenile court finds that the person seeking presumed parent status has failed to meet his burden of proof, the question on appeal, as in all failure of proof cases, is “ ‘whether the evidence compels a finding in favor of the 11 appellant[ ] as a matter of law.’ ” (In re Aurora P. (2015) 241 Ca

2013(See In re J.O. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 139, 150 .) However, because petitioner‟s judgment of paternity conclusively rebuts any section 7611 presumption, no weighing is performed here. 6 procedures for the termination of a biological parent‟s rights, and provides for the necessary notice and due process.

2018(See J.R. v. D.P . (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 374 , 384, 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 882 ; Kevin Q. v. Lauren W . (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1119 , 1133, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 477 ["There are no time limits or standing requirements for challenging, or asserting, a section 7611, subdivision (d) presumption"].) The fact that defendant husband's claim to parentage arises from a conclusive statutory presumption ( § 7540 ) and plaintiff's claim arises from a rebuttable statutory presumption (§ 7611, subd. (d) ), does not change the fact that each man has a claim that arises "under" division 12 of the Family Code.

2018(See J.R. v. D.P . (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 374 , 384, 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 882 ; Kevin Q. v. Lauren W . (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1119 , 1133, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 477 ["There are no time limits or standing requirements for challenging, or asserting, a section 7611, subdivision (d) presumption"].) The fact that defendant husband's claim to parentage arises from a conclusive statutory presumption ( § 7540 ) and plaintiff's claim arises from a rebuttable statutory presumption (§ 7611, subd. (d) ), does not change the fact that each man has a claim that arises "under" division 12 of the Family Code.

2015A [parent] who has lived with a child, treating [the child] as his [or her] son or daughter, has developed a relationship with the child that should not be lightly dissolved (Id. at p. 65, italics added & citation omitted.) In S.Y. v. S.B. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1023 [ 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ] (S.Y.), the court applied the section 7611(d) parentage presumption in a case where one of the parents (the adoptive mother) did not want her former same-sex partner (S.Y.) to have any parenting rights after their relationship ended.

2015A [parent] who has lived with a child, treating [the child] as his [or her] son or daughter, has developed a relationship with the child that should not be lightly dissolved (Id. at p. 65, italics added & citation omitted.) In S.Y. v. S.B. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1023 [ 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ] (S.Y.), the court applied the section 7611(d) parentage presumption in a case where one of the parents (the adoptive mother) did not want her former same-sex partner (S.Y.) to have any parenting rights after their relationship ended.

2004(Maj. opn., ante, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d at p. 228 , 85 P.3d at p. 21 .) There, the only issue the court addressed was whether the "presumed father status" of a man who qualifies for a presumption under two subdivisions of section 7611 necessarily "controls" over the "presumed father status" of a man who qualifies for a presumption under only subdivision (a)(4) of section 7611. ( Steven W., supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1116 , 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 535 .) Although "not[ing]" as an aside in a footnote that one of the men "was also entitled to a rebuttable presumption of paternity [under section 7555] on the bas

2004(Maj. opn., ante, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d at p. 228 , 85 P.3d at p. 21 .) There, the only issue the court addressed was whether the "presumed father status" of a man who qualifies for a presumption under two subdivisions of section 7611 necessarily "controls" over the "presumed father status" of a man who qualifies for a presumption under only subdivision (a)(4) of section 7611. ( Steven W., supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1116 , 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 535 .) Although "not[ing]" as an aside in a footnote that one of the men "was also entitled to a rebuttable presumption of paternity [under section 7555] on the bas

2017Taking a position contrary to its position below, Agency argues there is substantial evidence to support the court's finding that B.S. is a presumed father of L.L. under section 7611, subdivision (d). 6 B.S. joins in, and agrees with, Agency's arguments on this issue. *910 A The Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) (§ 7600 et seq.) "provides the framework by which California courts make paternity determinations. (§ 7610, subd. (b).)" *1310 ( Dawn D. v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 932 , 937, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 871 , 952 P.2d 1139 .) Section 7611 sets forth various rebuttable presumptions for determinin

2017Taking a position contrary to its position below, Agency argues there is substantial evidence to support the court's finding that B.S. is a presumed father of L.L. under section 7611, subdivision (d). 6 B.S. joins in, and agrees with, Agency's arguments on this issue. *910 A The Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) (§ 7600 et seq.) "provides the framework by which California courts make paternity determinations. (§ 7610, subd. (b).)" *1310 ( Dawn D. v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 932 , 937, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 871 , 952 P.2d 1139 .) Section 7611 sets forth various rebuttable presumptions for determinin