J.R. v. D.P.
212 Cal. App. 4th 374
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Paternity action to establish parental relationship; two men (plaintiff J.R. and R.M.) presumed fathers; DNA tests and a voluntary declaration of paternity by R.M. invoked; mother prevented access and contested DNA results; court held plaintiff had standing and could seek testing; R.M.’s declaration later set aside after genetic testing; plaintiff deemed biological father subject to third DNA test; court weighed competing presumptions under §7612(b) and ultimately designated plaintiff as the presumed father; judgment entered 2012 with custody orders.
- Mother and R.M. appealed alleging no standing, improper set aside of the declaration, and error in prioritizing biology over family stability; appellate review affirmed.
- The mother and R.M. later married; the child’s birth certificate was amended to reflect plaintiff as father; the court retained jurisdiction over child support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to bring paternity action | J.R. had standing under §7630(c) or via Kelsey S./Gabriel P. | Dawn D. and related cases limit standing to marital presumptions; biological father barred. | J.R. has standing. |
| Validity of R.M.'s voluntary declaration set aside | Genetic tests show RM not father; declaration should be set aside. | Burden on RM to prove statutory requirements; intrinsic fraud not sole basis. | Declaration set aside; RM not father. |
| Conflict of presumptions under §7612(b) | Weightier policy favors recognizing biological father's relationship. | Presumptions should preserve existing family unless outweighed. | Court did not abuse discretion; weightier interests favor plaintiff. |
| Kelsey S. factors applicability to paternity not adoptions | Kelsey S. analysis applies where mother blocks access; plaintiff qualifies as Kelsey S. father. | Kelsey S. concerns adoption context; may not apply here. | Plaintiff qualifies as a Kelsey S. father for purposes of standing and presumptions. |
| Impact on child’s well-being between competing parents | Child benefits from knowing biological father; two loving families can coexist. | Prioritizing biological ties over established family should preserve stability. | Best interests satisfied by recognizing plaintiff as presumed father; child maintains two loving families. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kevin Q. v. Lauren W., 175 Cal.App.4th 1119 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (voluntary declaration has force of judgment; set aside by genetic testing)
- Dawn D. v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.4th 932 (Cal. 1998) (standing restrictions for biological fathers in marital contexts)
- Gabriel P. v. Suedi D., 141 Cal.App.4th 850 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (unwed biological fathers may have standing when prevented by mother or third parties from becoming presumed fathers)
- In re M.C., 195 Cal.App.4th 197 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (Kelsey S. factors applied to establish a reasonable presumption)
- Kelsey S., 1 Cal.4th 816 (Cal. 1992) (adoption context; equal protection/due process for biological fathers)