Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 California opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re OSgreen2 sentences2003S. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1410 [ 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 571 ]), and did not do so, the court’s termination of his parental rights as a presumed father was an error. 2003S. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1410 [ 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 571 ]), and did not do so, the court’s termination of his parental rights as a presumed father was an error. | 1 | 2 |
In Re Sabrina H.green2 sentences2012(E.C. v. J.V. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1085 [ 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 339 ].) In our view, whether the man seeks presumed father status under section 7611, subdivision (d) directly, or under the rule of Jerry P ., he must demonstrate that he falls within the class of fathers described by the Legislature in section 7611, a classification that distinguishes “between those fathers who have entered into some familial relationship with the mother and child and those who have not.” (In re Sabrina H. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 702, 708 [ 266 Cal.Rptr. 274 ].) In short, we presume a person is a child’s father, 2012(E.C. v. J.V. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1085 [ 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 339 ].) In our view, whether the man seeks presumed father status under section 7611, subdivision (d) directly, or under the rule of Jerry P ., he must demonstrate that he falls within the class of fathers described by the Legislature in section 7611, a classification that distinguishes “between those fathers who have entered into some familial relationship with the mother and child and those who have not.” (In re Sabrina H. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 702, 708 [ 266 Cal.Rptr. 274 ].) In short, we presume a person is a child’s father, | 1 | 1 |
E.C. v. J.V.green2 sentences2012(E.C. v. J.V. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1085 [ 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 339 ].) In our view, whether the man seeks presumed father status under section 7611, subdivision (d) directly, or under the rule of Jerry P ., he must demonstrate that he falls within the class of fathers described by the Legislature in section 7611, a classification that distinguishes “between those fathers who have entered into some familial relationship with the mother and child and those who have not.” (In re Sabrina H. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 702, 708 [ 266 Cal.Rptr. 274 ].) In short, we presume a person is a child’s father, 2012(E.C. v. J.V. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1085 [ 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 339 ].) In our view, whether the man seeks presumed father status under section 7611, subdivision (d) directly, or under the rule of Jerry P ., he must demonstrate that he falls within the class of fathers described by the Legislature in section 7611, a classification that distinguishes “between those fathers who have entered into some familial relationship with the mother and child and those who have not.” (In re Sabrina H. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 702, 708 [ 266 Cal.Rptr. 274 ].) In short, we presume a person is a child’s father, | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Spencer W.
green
2 sentences1998“We do not reweigh the evidence but instead examine the whole record to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found for the respondent.” (In re Spencer W., supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1650 .) Gary asserts he has established the first prong of the presumed father test in that Samantha lives with him approximately one-half of the time. 1998"We do not reweigh the evidence but instead examine the whole record to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found for the respondent." ( In re Spencer W., supra, 48 Cal. App.4th at p. 1650 .) (2b) Gary asserts he has established the first prong of the presumed father test in that Samantha lives with him approximately one-half of the time. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Steven A. v. Rickie M.
green
1 sentence2022In deciding whether an individual has attained presumed father status, the juvenile court must consider his conduct “before and after the child’s birth.” (Adoption of Kelsey S., supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 849 .) Presumed father status is granted based on a commitment toward developing a “substantial familial relationship to the child.” (In re Sarah C. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 964, 975 .) W.B.’s lack of a commitment to parenting responsibilities during the period the court focused on is highly relevant to the presumed father analysis. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In Re Sarah C.
green
1 sentence2022In deciding whether an individual has attained presumed father status, the juvenile court must consider his conduct “before and after the child’s birth.” (Adoption of Kelsey S., supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 849 .) Presumed father status is granted based on a commitment toward developing a “substantial familial relationship to the child.” (In re Sarah C. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 964, 975 .) W.B.’s lack of a commitment to parenting responsibilities during the period the court focused on is highly relevant to the presumed father analysis. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In Re TR
green
1 sentence2021(See T.R., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p.1211.) We acknowledge that, in considering a presumed father claim under section 7611(d), there are no specific factors the juvenile court must consider (W.S. v. S.T., supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 145 ), and that “[n]o single factor is determinative” (R.M. v. T.A., supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 774 ). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
R.M. v. T.A.
green
1 sentence2021(See T.R., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p.1211.) We acknowledge that, in considering a presumed father claim under section 7611(d), there are no specific factors the juvenile court must consider (W.S. v. S.T., supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 145 ), and that “[n]o single factor is determinative” (R.M. v. T.A., supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 774 ). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
W.S. v. S.T.
green
1 sentence2021(See T.R., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p.1211.) We acknowledge that, in considering a presumed father claim under section 7611(d), there are no specific factors the juvenile court must consider (W.S. v. S.T., supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 145 ), and that “[n]o single factor is determinative” (R.M. v. T.A., supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 774 ). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Elisa B. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2013In Elisa B. v. Superior Court (2005) 37 Cal.4th 108 (Elisa B.), the California Supreme Court addressed the “parental rights and obligations, if any, of a woman with regard to a child born to her partner in a lesbian relationship.” (Id. at p. 113.) Section 4 7611 provides in part that a man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if he “receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his natural child.” (§ 7611, subd. (d).) Section 7650 provides that provisions applicable to determining a father and child relationship shall be used to determine a mother and child rela | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re Jesusa
green
2 sentences2004The majority's fallback position — that Heriberto actually "was absent for only a portion of the presumed father hearing" (maj. opn., ante, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d at p. 214 , 85 P.3d at p. 9 , italics added) — is simply incorrect. 2004The majority's fallback position — that Heriberto actually "was absent for only a portion of the presumed father hearing" (maj. opn., ante, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d at p. 214 , 85 P.3d at p. 9 , italics added) — is simply incorrect. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.