Martinez v. Vaziri
246 Cal. App. 4th 373
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Petitioner (Anthony Martinez), the child’s biological uncle, sought recognition as a presumed/third parent under Fam. Code §§ 7611(d) and 7612(c) for his three‑year‑old niece. The trial court found he satisfied the § 7611(d) presumed‑parent test (receiving the child into his home and holding out as parent).
- Mother testified Martinez had been the primary male figure since birth, child refers to him as “father,” and Martinez provided care, housing initially, and ongoing visitation (several days/week or 5–20 hours/week after a CPS‑ordered no‑contact period).
- In Nov. 2013 Martinez spanked the child, causing bruises; CPS investigated and imposed a six‑month no‑contact plan; visitation later resumed under therapeutic supervision.
- An earlier paternity judgment established the biological father’s parentage; father has had almost no contact and is incarcerated.
- The trial court found, under Fam. Code § 7612(c), that recognizing only two parents (mother and biological father) would not be detrimental to the child, and under § 7612(d) treated the earlier paternity judgment as rebutting Martinez’s presumption. Martinez appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Martinez) | Defendant's Argument (Vaziri / Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court correctly construed “harm of removing the child from a stable placement” under Fam. Code § 7612(c) | The court misread “stable placement” narrowly (as living arrangement) and failed to consider the existing parent–child relationship and psychological harm from removing Martinez | Mother argued she would continue to allow Martinez access and that denial would not be detrimental; she also raised CPS concerns about Martinez’s past conduct | Reversed and remanded: trial court misapplied § 7612(c) by focusing on living arrangement and failed to consider all relevant factors (including the ongoing parental relationship) |
| Whether a § 7611 presumption may be rebutted by an earlier paternity judgment under § 7612(d) after § 7612(c) detriment inquiry | Martinez: § 7612(d) rebuttal cannot automatically follow where denying third‑parent status would be detrimental given father’s lack of meaningful role | Mother/respondents: § 7612(d) applies because an earlier paternity judgment exists and court found no detriment under § 7612(c) | Court: § 7612(d) rebuttal is operative only if the court first properly finds no detriment under § 7612(c); because § 7612(c) was misapplied, § 7612(d) determination must be reconsidered on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Nicholas H., 28 Cal.4th 56 (state interest in preserving developed parent‑child relationships guides parentage presumptions)
- Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 108 (policy favoring two parents and limits on when presumption may be rebutted)
- R.M. v. T.A., 233 Cal.App.4th 760 (parentage can be found despite noncohabitation where an existing parental role was assumed)
- Donovan L., 244 Cal.App.4th 1075 (§ 7612(c) requires an existing parent–child relationship for the ‘‘detriment’’ inquiry)
- In re D.M., 210 Cal.App.4th 541 (nonbiological caregivers may be treated as presumed parents when they have assumed parental role)