S.Y. v. S.B.
201 Cal. App. 4th 1023
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- S.B., adoptive mother of G.B. and M.B., appeals a judgment recognizing S.Y. as a presumed parent under Fam. Code §7611(d).
- S.Y., former same‑sex partner, sought to be declared the second parent; the trial court held a factual dispute and tried the matter.
- From birth, G.B. and M.B. were cared for with S.Y. spending frequent nights at S.B.’s home and participating in major parenting duties.
- S.Y. contributed financially (including home study, expenses, college accounts) and engaged in activities indicating parental role.
- S.B. and S.Y. reconciled in 2005; S.Y. continued to be involved with the children, and S.Y.’s family treated the children as grandchildren.
- The trial court found S.Y. received the children into her home and openly held them out as her own, and that S.B. failed to rebut the presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether S.Y. received the children into her home | S.B. argues S.Y. never lived with them as a family home. | S.Y. contends the blended home and overnight presence suffice to receive the children. | Yes; court held S.Y. received the children into their home. |
| Whether S.Y. openly held the children out as her own | S.B. asserts lack of explicit public assertions of parentage by S.Y. | S.Y. points to actions showing commitment and public acknowledgment as family. | Yes; court held S.Y. openly held them out as her natural children. |
| Whether the presumption under §7611(d) can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence | S.B. argues the presumption should be rebuttable with evidence of non‑biological status and lack of coparenting. | S.Y. argues the presumption should not be rebutted given shared parenting and public commitment. | No; court found S.B. failed to present clear and convincing evidence to rebut. |
| Whether recognizing S.Y. as a parent infringes SB's substantive due process rights | SB claims Troxel protections apply to parenting decisions. | Court distinguishes parentage ruling from visitation statutes and finds no constitutional violation. | No; decision did not infringe SB’s fundamental parental rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.O., 178 Cal.App.4th 139 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (presumed parentage evidence standards under UPA)
- In re A.A., 114 Cal.App.4th 771 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (receiving and holding out expansive interpretation)
- Charisma R. v. Kristina S., 175 Cal.App.4th 361 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (equal protection and non‑simultaneity considerations; Troxel distinction)
- In re Spencer W., 48 Cal.App.4th 1647 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (examples of factors showing commitment to child)
- Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 108 (Cal. 2005) (presumption rebuttal and public policy for two parents)
- In re Nicholas H., 28 Cal.4th 56 (Cal. 2002) (simultaneity of parentage claims considered)
- K.M. v. E.G., 37 Cal.4th 130 (Cal. 2005) (parens patriae and parental rights arising from nonbiological connections)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (visitation rights; scope of parental decision‑making rights)