M.M. v. D.V.
D077468
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 19, 2021Background:
- M.M. had a 2015 relationship with Child’s mother; she later told him a doctor’s estimate meant he could not be the father.
- Child was born July 2016; T.M. signed a Voluntary Declaration of Parentage and later married Mother; T.M. is listed as Child’s legal father.
- DNA testing in January 2019 (Child age two) established M.M. as the biological father; Mother permitted short, intermittent visits but then cut off contact.
- M.M. filed a petition (Sept. 2019) seeking recognition as a third parent under Family Code §7612(c), relying on Kelsey S. principles to claim presumed-parent status despite being blocked earlier.
- The trial court denied relief, finding M.M. had not promptly assumed parental responsibilities and lacked an existing parent–child relationship; it alternatively ruled that, even assuming presumed status, recognizing a third parent would not be required because no detriment to Child was shown.
- On appeal the court assumed (without deciding) M.M. could qualify as a Kelsey S. father but affirmed denial because substantial evidence showed no existing relationship and therefore no detriment from having only two parents.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether M.M. qualifies as a Kelsey S. (constitutional) presumed father | M.M.: prevented by Mother/third parties from timely becoming presumed father; due process/equal protection entitle him to presumed status | Mother/T.M.: he did not promptly assume duties, offered no support, failed to act earlier | Court assumed Kelsey S. status for analysis but did not decide it; affirmed denial on other grounds and rejected some trial-court reasoning that he should have demanded testing earlier |
| Whether M.M. should be adjudged a third parent under Fam. Code §7612(c) | M.M.: biological father; denying third-parent status deprives Child of bond/heritage and future relationship | Mother/T.M.: §7612(c) applies only in rare cases with an existing parent–child relationship; no such relationship exists here | Denied — §7612(c) requires an existing relationship and a showing that having only two parents would be detrimental; substantial evidence supports finding of no existing relationship or detriment |
| Whether speculative future harms or possible parental instability justify third-parent recognition | M.M.: possible marital instability/mental-health issues and lost opportunity to bond create detriment | Mother/T.M.: speculative and insufficient to show detriment under §7612(c) | Rejected — speculative future harms are insufficient; Donovan standard controls and limits §7612(c) to rare cases with existing relationships |
Key Cases Cited
- Adoption of Kelsey S., 1 Cal.4th 816 (recognizes constitutional protection for unwed biological fathers who promptly assume parental responsibilities)
- In re Donovan L., 244 Cal.App.4th 1075 (§7612(c) applies narrowly; requires an existing parent–child relationship and proof that having only two parents would be detrimental)
- In re M.Z., 5 Cal.App.5th 53 (a putative third-parent claim requires an existing parent–child relationship before §7612(c) relief)
- In re L.L., 13 Cal.App.5th 1302 (courts protect existing relationships over potential ones in parentage cases)
- In re J.L., 159 Cal.App.4th 1010 (discussion of presumed-parent principles under the UPA)
- J.R. v. D.P., 212 Cal.App.4th 374 (Kelsey S. father may be treated as a presumed parent for resolving parentage conflicts)
Disposition: Judgment affirmed.