parentage presumption in California

2015(Id. at p. 1037.) Likewise, Charisma R., supra, 175 Cal.App.4th 361 , rejected a biological mother’s constitutional challenge to application of the parentage presumption to her former same-sex partner, reasoning: “[Biological mother’s] claim is essentially that as the biological mother, and in the effective absence of a biological father, she has a fundamental right to decide whether [the child] has a second parent.

2015(Id. at p. 1037.) Likewise, Charisma R., supra, 175 Cal.App.4th 361 , rejected a biological mother’s constitutional challenge to application of the parentage presumption to her former same-sex partner, reasoning: “[Biological mother’s] claim is essentially that as the biological mother, and in the effective absence of a biological father, she has a fundamental right to decide whether [the child] has a second parent.

2015(S.Y, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 1036 .) Consistent with the principle that presumed parent status may be afforded to a person who is not the biological parent, a lack of biological parentage does not alone require that the presumption be deemed rebutted.

2012(Charisma R., supra, 175 Cal.App.4th 361 ; S.Y., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th 1023 .) 11 Therefore, the fact that L.M. did not obtain a stepparent adoption, and instead seeks to establish parental rights through the UPA, does not necessarily make this an appropriate action in which to rebut the parentage presumption in favor of L.M.

2016The court did not conduct a parentage inquiry as required under section 316.2.14 The procedures of that 14 Under section 316.2, subdivision (a), at the detention hearing “or soon thereafter as practicable, the court shall inquire of the mother and any other appropriate person as to the identity and address of all presumed or alleged fathers.” The inquiry “shall include at least all of the following, as the court deems appropriate,” a list of factors including whether a judgment of paternity already exists; whether the mother has received support payments or promises of support with respect to

2011(Paul H., supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at p. 761 .) Rule 5.635(h) required that the juvenile court determine if Tyrone M. was J.H.’s biological father as part of the parentage determination, whether by ordering genetic tests or deciding based on the other evidence presented at the parentage hearing.

2015(Nicholas H., supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 58-59, 63.) In L.M., supra, 208 Cal.App.4th 133 (the case cited by the trial court here), this court recognized the two-parent policy and held that the trial court properly found rebuttal inappropriate in a case showing a “same-sex couple who decided together to bring the Child into their family to jointly raise him, and no other person is competing for the position of the child’s second parent.” (Id. at p. 145.) However, we also noted that the determination of whether it is appropriate to rebut a parentage presumption in a particular case is generally a

2015(Nicholas H., supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 58-59, 63.) In L.M., supra, 208 Cal.App.4th 133 (the case cited by the trial court here), this court recognized the two parent policy and held that the trial court properly found rebuttal inappropriate in a case showing a "same- sex couple who decided together to bring the Child into their family to jointly raise him, and no other person is competing for the position of the child's second parent." (Id. at p. 26 145.) However, we also noted that the determination of whether it is appropriate to rebut a parentage presumption in a particular case is generall

2022(See id. at p. 65 [noting a person “ ‘ “ ‘ “who has lived with a child, treating it as his [or her] son or daughter, has developed a relationship with the child that should not be lightly dissolved” ’ ” ’ ”].) Shannon relies on In re Karen C. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 932 (Karen C.) in support of various policy considerations she contends should apply in 20 rebutting the parentage presumption between Charles and Judy.

2021Bill No. 274 (2013-2014 Reg. Sess.) § 1.)” (Donovan, supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1090-1091.) Donovan then explained that its interpretation of what constitutes “ ‘an appropriate action’ ” under section 7612, subdivision (c) is in harmony with the broader statutory framework for determining parentage under the UPA. 13 (Donovan, supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 1091 .) As Donovan observed, “[i]n making parentage determinations under the UPA, courts seek to protect existing relationships rather than foster potential relationships,” and “[o]ver the past three decades, courts increasingly have looked

2021Bill No. 274 (2013-2014 Reg. Sess.) § 1.)” (Donovan, supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1090-1091.) Donovan then explained that its interpretation of what constitutes “ ‘an appropriate action’ ” under section 7612, subdivision (c) is in harmony with the broader statutory framework for determining parentage under the UPA. 13 (Donovan, supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 1091 .) As Donovan observed, “[i]n making parentage determinations under the UPA, courts seek to protect existing relationships rather than foster potential relationships,” and “[o]ver the past three decades, courts increasingly have looked

2015Moreover, we note that a “dependency court has a duty to determine the parentage of a child when a man appears at a hearing requesting a paternity finding. [Citation.]” (In re Vincent M. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 943, 959 .) In light of these considerations, we turn to the juvenile court’s denial of a brief continuance of the parentage hearing.

2014(Craig L., supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 47 .) The court remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether Craig was, in fact, a presumed parent under section 7611, subdivision (d).

2014(Craig L., supra, at p. 53 .) At most, Craig L. may be read to suggest that a biological father who also has a relationship with the child has a due process right to standing to pursue a parentage claim.

2012(See, e.g., Elisa B., supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 125 [“this is not an appropriate action in which to rebut the presumption that Elisa is the twins’ parent with proof that she is not the children’s biological mother . . .”]; Nicholas H., supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 70 [not an appropriate action to rebut the presumption arising under § 7611, subd. (d) regarding a man who admitted he was not the biological father because no other man claimed parental rights to the child and rebutting the presumption would have left the child fatherless]; In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588 , 606-607 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 2

2012(See, e.g., Elisa B., supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 125 [“this is not an appropriate action in which to rebut the presumption that Elisa is the twins’ parent with proof that she is not the children’s biological mother . . .”]; Nicholas H., supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 70 [not an appropriate action to rebut the presumption arising under § 7611, subd. (d) regarding a man who admitted he was not the biological father because no other man claimed parental rights to the child and rebutting the presumption would have left the child fatherless]; In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588 , 606-607 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 2

2012(See Levi H., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 1286 .) As we have explained, the determination of whether it is appropriate to rebut a parentage presumption depends on the unique facts of each case, and we accordingly express no view on whether under a different fact pattern involving an adopted child it may be appropriate to rebut a parentage presumption arising in favor of a person who was not the individual who legally adopted the child.

2011IV Recognizing S.Y. as a Parent Did Not Infringe upon S.B.’s Fundamental Right to Rear Her Children Citing Troxel v. Granville (2000) 530 U.S. 57 [ 147 L.Ed.2d 49 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 ], S.B. claims that the trial court’s order declaring that S.Y. is a parent of G.B. and M.B. violated her right, under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her children.

2011IV Recognizing S.Y. as a Parent Did Not Infringe upon S.B.’s Fundamental Right to Rear Her Children Citing Troxel v. Granville (2000) 530 U.S. 57 [ 147 L.Ed.2d 49 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 ], S.B. claims that the trial court’s order declaring that S.Y. is a parent of G.B. and M.B. violated her right, under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her children.

2009The breastfeeding photographs are not graphic and the photograph of Amalia is not child pornography. 21 At most Charisma demonstrated an isolated instance of poor judgment in including those photographs in a large group of appropriate photographs posted online. 22 The evidence presented by Kristina is not comparable to the evidence justifying rebuttal of the parentage presumption in In re T.R., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 1202 .

2009(Ibid.) 23 The court concluded that, although the parentage presumption may have arisen based on Marvin’s acting in a paternal role since the minor was three, the juvenile court did not err in concluding the presumption was rebutted by his conduct. ( 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1212 .) The court emphasized that Marvin had deceived the minor’s mother regarding his criminal convictions and the juvenile court had found true the allegations of molestation by clear and convincing evidence.

2009The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Concluding That No Other Facts Justified Rebuttal of the Parentage Presumption In Charisma I, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at page 307 , this court indicated that rebuttal of the parentage presumption would not be an abuse of discretion, even if all the Elisa B. factors are present, if other facts justified rebuttal of the presumption.

2004As explained above, we held in Johnson that, under the UPA, the parentage claim of a woman who has established her biological maternity and who "from the outset intended to be the child's mother" cannot be defeated based on the child's best interests, even by another woman who also establishes a biological basis for parentage. ( Johnson, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 93 , 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 494 , 851 P.2d 776 .) Here, the majority holds that a man in the same position — who has established his biological paternity, who moved in with the mother a year before the child's birth and intended from the outset

2004As explained above, we held in Johnson that, under the UPA, the parentage claim of a woman who has established her biological maternity and who "from the outset intended to be the child's mother" cannot be defeated based on the child's best interests, even by another woman who also establishes a biological basis for parentage. ( Johnson, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 93 , 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 494 , 851 P.2d 776 .) Here, the majority holds that a man in the same position — who has established his biological paternity, who moved in with the mother a year before the child's birth and intended from the outset