R.M. v. T.A.
233 Cal. App. 4th 760
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Mother conceived Child via artificial insemination; RM is not the biological father but the trial court found RM a presumed father under §7611(d).
- Mother sought to be a single parent and argued the presumed-parent scheme violates her constitutional rights and should treat single-parent choice as coequal with two-parent arrangements.
- RM engaged in a substantial, ongoing parental role in Louisiana—visits, housing Child, church involvement, and financial support—creating a developed parent-child relationship.
- Evidence included RM’s presence at birth and in Child’s life, photographs, family activities, and letters/cards recognizing RM as Father/Daddy; Mother traveled with Child to RM’s home and enrolled Child in church programs.
- Trial court found RM satisfied the §7611(d) requirements and that the presumption was not rebutted; appellate review affirmed, rejecting Mother’s constitutional challenges and sustaining the presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutional challenge to §7611(d) presumption | Mother argues single-parent choice must get heightened protection | Presumption serves child stability and family integrity | No constitutional infringement; presumption backed by state interest in stability |
| Rebuttal of the presumption when no competing claimant | Presumption should be rebuttable regardless of other claimants | Rebuttal may be appropriate; cases recognize two-parent policy as factor | Rebuttal not categorically precluded; court may evaluate facts to determine rebuttal |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support RM as presumed parent | Record insufficient to establish RM received Child into home or held out as own | Record shows extensive, ongoing parental relationship and public acknowledgment | Record supports RM as presumed parent; presumption not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental rights and state interest in child welfare; fit parent presumption)
- Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 108 (Cal. 2005) (presumptions driven by welfare of child and family integrity)
- In re Nicholas H., 28 Cal.4th 56 (Cal. 2002) (presumed parent status not limited to biological parent; rebuttal standards)
- S.Y. v. S.B., 201 Cal.App.4th 1023 (Cal. App. 2011) (affirmed presumed parent status where parties acted as two-parent unit)
- In re Jesusa V., 32 Cal.4th 588 (Cal. 2004) (context on nonbiological parenthood and presumptions)
- In re Spencer W., 48 Cal.App.4th 1647 (Cal. App. 1996) (limits of presumed parent status based on care arrangements)
- In re D.M., 210 Cal.App.4th 541 (Cal. App. 2012) (two-parent policy tied to rebuttal considerations)
- Charisma R. v. Kristina S., 175 Cal.App.4th 361 (Cal. App. 2009) (rejected automatic constitutional override of presumption)