Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Richard B.
203 Cal. App. 4th 1361
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- DCFS received a 2010 referral alleging Cheyenne's mother Summer endangered the child; five siblings were detained.
- Dennis M. sought presumed father status and custody; the court found him as Cheyenne’s presumed father at detention and released Cheyenne to him in Nevada over DCFS objection.
- Richard B. claimed paternity and sought Cheyenne’s presumed father status, alleging a 2009 judgment establishing parental obligations evidenced paternity.
- A paternity hearing on August 24, 2010 concluded Richard did not satisfy section 7611(d) and Dennis remained Cheyenne’s presumed father; a September 29, 2010 judgment declared Cheyenne and D.H. dependents with Dennis as custodian.
- Richard appealed, arguing the 2009 paternity judgment rebutted the section 7611(d) presumption and that section 7636 required effect of the prior paternity adjudication.
- The court ultimately held a prior paternity judgment can rebut 7611(d) but does not automatically confer presumed father status; Richard failed to prove he meets any 7611 category.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a prior paternity judgment rebut the 7611(d) presumption? | Richard argues the 2009 judgment defeats Dennis's presumed father status under 7612(c). | Dennis contends 7612(c) does not compel designating Richard as presumed father and may require weighing interests. | Yes; prior judgment rebutted 7611(d); but not automatically making Richard the presumed father. |
| Must the dependency court apply the prior paternity adjudication under 7636? | 7636 requires effect for all purposes including presumed father status. | 7636 does not force a presumed father finding from a prior paternity judgment. | No automatic effect; 7636 does not compel designation as presumed father. |
| Did Richard have substantial evidence to be Cheyenne’s presumed father under 7611(d)? | Richard asserts he satisfied 7611(d) by receiving Cheyenne into his home or through regular visitation and open acknowledgment. | Court found Richard failed to receive Cheyenne into his home or demonstrate regular conducive visitation. | Substantial evidence supports denial of Richard as Cheyenne’s presumed father. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re P.A., 198 Cal.App.4th 974 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd) (rebuttal with a paternity judgment requires balancing competing interests)
- In re Levi H., 197 Cal.App.4th 1279 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd) (voluntary declaration of paternity has same effect as a judgment; rebuttal under 7612(c))
- Kevin Q. v. Lauren W., 175 Cal.App.4th 1119 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd) (analysis of voluntary declarations and presumed father status; balancing approach)
- In re E.O., 182 Cal.App.4th 722 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd) (7636 does not automatically confer presumed father status from paternity judgment)
- In re Margarita D., 72 Cal.App.4th 1288 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd) (presumed father finding is not the same as a paternity judgment; nature of relationship matters)
- In re A.A., 114 Cal.App.4th 771 (Cal. App. Dist. 4th) (presumed father status involves commitment to paternal responsibilities; factors include visitation)