In re L.L.
D071661
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 3, 2017Background
- L.L., born 2006, was detained after mother’s 2016 arrest; birth certificate lists Mother and T.L. as parents; B.S. is biological father by genetic test.
- B.S. previously obtained a 2007 family-court order finding a parental relationship and joint legal custody; he had regular contact with L.L. through ~age 4½ but ceased contact after incarceration (sentenced 2011).
- The juvenile court initially treated B.S. as an alleged father, ordered DNA testing, and later found he is L.L.’s biological father.
- On January 23, 2017 the juvenile court found B.S. a presumed father under Fam. Code §7611(d) and also declared him a third parent under §7612(c); it ordered supervised calls/visits.
- Mother and T.L. appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for presumed-father status, misapplication of §7612(c) for third-parent designation, and failure to weigh competing presumptions under §7612(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether B.S. is a presumed father under Fam. Code §7611(d) (received child into home & held out as child) | T.L./Mother: insufficient evidence; B.S. lost any presumption by long absence and lack of current relationship | B.S./Agency: evidence of prior custody order, visits, financial support, holding out — presumption established even if relationship lapsed | Court: Substantial evidence supports B.S. is a presumed father under §7611(d); prior established holding-out/receiving suffices despite later lapse (followed In re J.O.) |
| Whether B.S. may be a third parent under §7612(c) | T.L./Mother/Agency: statute requires an existing parent–child relationship; no current relationship exists so third-parent finding invalid | B.S.: court may recognize third parent; earlier relationship and parental role support designation | Court: Reversed third-parent finding — §7612(c) applies only in rare cases with an existing parent–child relationship and where recognizing only two parents would be detrimental; no evidence of existing relationship here (followed Donovan L.) |
| Whether juvenile court erred by not applying §7612(b) weighing between competing presumed fathers (T.L. vs. B.S.) | T.L./Mother: court should have weighed and no remand needed because B.S. cannot reasonably prevail | Agency: remand required so court can weigh competing presumptions | Court: Error to omit §7612(b) weighing; remanded for evidentiary hearing and findings to weigh claims and decide which presumed father controls |
| Proper interpretation of temporal requirement for §7611(d) (must exist at time of hearing?) | T.L./Mother: presumption must exist at time of parentage determination; present-tense language implies current relationship required | B.S./Agency: meeting §7611(d) at any point establishes presumption; subsequent lapse does not automatically rebut it | Court: Agrees with B.S./Agency — prior compliance with §7611(d) suffices to establish presumption; present-tense verbs are applied to any point in child’s life, so later absence does not rebut the presumption; disputes about ongoing relationship are for §7612(b) weighing |
Key Cases Cited
- Dawn D. v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.4th 932 (framework of UPA and parentage presumptions)
- R.M. v. T.A., 233 Cal.App.4th 760 (factors for §7611(d) — receiving child into home and holding out)
- In re J.O., 178 Cal.App.4th 139 (once §7611(d) elements established earlier, later lapse does not necessarily rebut presumption)
- Donovan L. v. Superior Court, 244 Cal.App.4th 1075 (§7612(c) requires existing parent–child relationship; §7612(b) weighing between presumptions)
- In re Alexander P., 4 Cal.App.5th 475 (contrasting view that presumed status must be current at time of proceeding)