Dent v. Wolf, B278951

Background

In December 2014, 69-year-old Susan Dent filed a Family Code §7630 petition to establish parental relationship, naming the executor/special administrator of her putative father's estate as respondent.
Dent acknowledged she was not seeking financial support, estate distribution, or any pecuniary relief; she sought only a judicial declaration of paternity for nonfinancial reasons (e.g., ability to amend her birth certificate, identify family members).
Dent’s putative father died in 1985 and the probate estate was finally adjudicated in 1993.
The special administrator moved to dismiss, arguing Dent lacked standing and the petition presented no justiciable controversy because it sought no financial relief and the alleged father was deceased.
The trial court dismissed the petition, finding the object of paternity laws (child welfare and support) was not implicated and no justiciable controversy remained.
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding Dent had statutory standing as a child under Family Code §7630(c) and that a nonfinancial paternity determination presents a justiciable controversy.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a deceased putative child can bring a paternity action when she seeks no financial relief	Dent: §7630(c) expressly authorizes a child to bring a paternity action; no pecuniary interest is required	Administrator: No justiciable controversy because Dent seeks only nonfinancial relief; father is dead and estate closed	Held: Dent has standing; §7630(c) permits a child to sue regardless of pecuniary interest and the dispute is justiciable
Whether absence of financial claim renders paternity action moot or advisory	Dent: Her injury is lack of an established parent-child relationship, which is a cognizable interest independent of support	Administrator: Without support or estate interest, there is no concrete controversy	Held: Establishing parentage is a fundamental right and can provide effective relief (e.g., birth-certificate amendment); not moot
Whether statutory standing requires age or pecuniary condition	Dent: §7630 contains no age or pecuniary limitation	Administrator: Implied that plaintiff must have a tangible stake like support or estate interest	Held: §7630 contains no such conditions; child has standing irrespective of age or financial claim
Whether Wilson & Wilson controls to bar the suit as nonjusticiable	Dent: Wilson addresses ripeness/mootness in a different statutory context and does not override §7630’s grant of standing	Administrator: Relies on Wilson principles of ripeness and mootness	Held: Wilson’s principles do not defeat Dent’s statutory right; case presents a true controversy the court can resolve

Key Cases Cited

Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal.4th 84 (1993) (discusses purpose of Uniform Parentage Act and parity between legitimate and illegitimate children)
Michael M. v. Giovanna F., 5 Cal.App.4th 1272 (1992) (predecessor statute governs standing to declare paternity)
Lisa I. v. Superior Court, 133 Cal.App.4th 605 (2005) (Family Code §7630 lists persons with standing to determine paternity)
J.R. v. D.P., 212 Cal.App.4th 374 (2012) (applies §7630 to standing issues)
Said v. Jegan, 146 Cal.App.4th 1375 (2007) (standing is a threshold issue before reaching merits in paternity actions)
Ernest P. v. Superior Court, 111 Cal.App.3d 234 (1980) (establishment of parent-child relationship is a fundamental right separate from support claims)
Ruddock v. Ohls, 91 Cal.App.3d 271 (1979) (distinguishes parentage determination from enforcement of support; parentage is a fundamental right)
Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City, 191 Cal.App.4th 1559 (2011) (explains ripeness and mootness principles for justiciability)
County of Shasta v. Caruthers, 31 Cal.App.4th 1838 (1995) (discusses importance of parent-child relationship)
Estate of Sanders, 2 Cal.App.4th 462 (1992) (addresses DNA testing of putative relatives in paternity contexts)