Neil S. v. Mary L.
131 Cal. Rptr. 3d 51
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Neil S. appeals an order quashing his petition to establish paternity, seek joint custody/visitation, child support, and genetic testing.
- Twins were born May 2009 to Mary L. and Scott J., with Scott having accepted them as his children.
- Neil argued prenatal relationship and ongoing involvement, seeking to establish a presumed father status under the UPA and to compel testing.
- Mary moved to quash, asserting Neil lacked standing and that Scott held rebuttable presumptions as father; evidence showed Scott’s care for the twins.
- The family court dismissed the petition, relying on Dawn D. to defeat Neil’s due process claim; standing and equal protection issues were addressed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge paternity under the UPA | Neil asserts standing under §7611(d) and related provisions. | Mary/Scott contend Neil lacks standing to compel testing or challenge paternity. | Neil lacks standing under the UPA; only Scott has presumptive status. |
| Due process liberty interest in developing a parental relationship | Neil claims a prenatal relationship creates a protected liberty interest. | Mary asserts no such right; Dawn D. controls and rejects prenatal-based liberty interests. | Dawn D. defeats Neil’s due process liberty interest claim. |
| Constitutionality of section 7611(d) on equal protection grounds | Neil argues marital status discriminates against unwed fathers seeking rights. | Respondents argue waiver and no suspect classification; no strict scrutiny applies. | Equal protection challenge waived; no basis to apply heightened scrutiny. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dawn D. v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.4th 932 (Cal. 1998) (denies due process liberty interest for unwed father lacking standing)
- In re Jesusa V., 32 Cal.4th 588 (Cal. 2004) (weight in balancing presumptions under §7611; biology not controlling)
- Craig L. v. Sandy S., 125 Cal.App.4th 36 (Cal. App. 2004) (presumed father rules and social relationship considerations)
- In re Nicholas H., 28 Cal.4th 56 (Cal. 2002) (importance of existing social relationship for parental rights)
- Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1989) (biological link without personal relationship generally not a liberty interest)
- Adoption of Kelsey S., 1 Cal.4th 816 (Cal. 1992) (adoption context limits on unwed fathers’ rights under certain circumstances)
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1983) (distinction between biological relation and actual parental responsibility)