202 Cal. App. 4th 1076
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant E.C. challenges a trial court order denying presumed parent status under Family Code 7611(d) after evidentiary hearing.
- Respondent J.V. opposes, arguing E.C. did not hold out the minor as her natural child or receive the minor into her home.
- Trial court found E.C. failed to prove presumed parent status and denied petition; court remanded for reconsideration.
- The minor L.V. was born to J.V. from a prior relation with Brian P.; Brian had little involvement.
- E.C. and J.V. had a long-term, committed relationship; E.C. helped with prenatal care and treated the minor as part of a family unit.
- Court indicates misapplication of UPA standards requires remand for proper analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly applied UPA 7611(d) to determine presumed parent status. | EC argues misapplication; evidence shows commitment to minor. | Respondent maintains lack of holding out and home reception negates presumed status. | Remanded for correct application of 7611(d). |
| Whether EC received the minor into her home under 7611(d). | Undisputed that minor moved to EC’s home at 3 months. | Not disputed; focus on other factors. | EC received the minor into her home; first element satisfied. |
| Whether EC held out the minor as her natural child under 7611(d). | EC treated minor as daughter; family and coworkers acknowledged this. | Respondent disputes being held out; intended not to create parental rights. | Remand to evaluate holding out under correct legal framework. |
| Whether other trial-court factors improperly influenced presumed parent analysis. | Trial court relied on irrelevant factors like prior sexual relationship and cohabitation. | Not all factors improper; some relevant to commitment were ignored. | Improper weighting; remand to apply proper standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sabrina H., 217 Cal.App.3d 702 (1990) (held that a presumed parent requires commitment to the child, not mere biology or relationship with the other parent)
- In re J.O., 178 Cal.App.4th 139 (2009) (UPA presumption may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Nicholas H., 28 Cal.4th 56 (2002) (living with and treating the child as own can create presumed parent status)
- Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 108 (2005) (equal application of presumed parent principles to mothers; value of two parents)
- A.A., 114 Cal.App.4th 771 (2003) (cohabitation not required; focus on commitment to the child)
- Salvador M., 111 Cal.App.4th 1353 (2003) (holding out can be proven without living with the child’s other parent)
- T.R., 132 Cal.App.4th 1202 (2005) (list of factors showing commitment; not all needed; focus on child’s welfare)