2013 COA 170
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Limberis and Havens were long-term partners; Havens gave birth to A.R.L. after intercourse with a man (Bolt) unknown to Limberis; Bolt later denied parentage and sought to relinquish rights.
- Limberis lived with and parented A.R.L.; she was present at the birth, the child used Limberis’ surname, and Limberis held and treated A.R.L. as her child.
- Limberis filed a second-parent adoption (later dismissed) and then a maternity petition under the Colorado Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), alleging presumptive parentage under the “holding out” provision (§ 19-4-105(1)(d)).
- The trial court dismissed Limberis’ UPA maternity petition, reasoning a child cannot have two mothers because A.R.L. already had two biological parents; it therefore did not reach the factual question whether Limberis was a presumptive mother.
- Bolt subsequently obtained an order relinquishing parental rights, leaving A.R.L. with only Havens as a legal parent; Limberis appealed the dismissal of her maternity petition and allocation of parental responsibilities.
Issues
| Issue | Limberis’ Argument | Havens’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Limberis had capacity/standing under the UPA to bring a maternity action | Limberis is an "interested party" and may seek a determination of maternity under §19-4-122 | Limberis lacked capacity because a child already had a mother and father | Court: Limberis had capacity as an interested party; dismissal on capacity grounds was error |
| Whether the UPA permits a child born during a same-sex relationship to have two legal mothers (biological + presumptive) | UPA is gender-neutral; holding-out presumption applies equally to women; child may have two mothers if presumptive criteria met | A child cannot have two mothers; allowing it would create three parents or substitute a mother for a father | Court: UPA allows two mothers in same-sex context; a presumptive mother may co-exist with a biological mother; dismissal was error |
| Whether Bolt’s alleged biological connection barred Limberis’ claim (concern about three legal parents) | Bolt was at most an alleged father; no genetic tests or statutory presumptions applied; Bolt also denied paternity and sought relinquishment | Granting Limberis would create three legal parents or improperly substitute a mother for a father | Court: Bolt was not a presumed legal parent here; competing presumptions are resolved by the trial court on the merits; no per se bar to Limberis’ claim |
| Whether method of conception (sexual intercourse v. assisted reproduction) affects application of holding-out presumption | Method of conception is irrelevant to §19-4-105(1)(d); statute does not limit holding-out by conception method | Havens argued limiting principle (but relied on marital/biological assumptions) | Court: Method of conception does not limit holding-out presumption; Legislature limited other provisions where intended, but not this one |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (discusses that biology alone is not always conclusive for parentage)
- Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (explains conclusive parentage presumption context; inapposite here because this case did not involve a conclusive presumption)
- N.A.H. v. S.L.S., 9 P.3d 354 (Colo. 2000) (biology is not conclusive; competing presumptions and statutory framework for parentage)
- In Interest of S.N.V., 284 P.3d 147 (Colo. App. 2011) (holding-out presumption can support a nonbiological mother’s maternity claim)
- Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 108 (Cal. 2005) (recognizes a presumed second mother under a holding-out theory)