San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Roger S.
198 Cal. App. 4th 974
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Six-year-old P.A. was made dependent due to domestic violence between Patricia and Roger, who was P.A.’s presumed father under §7611(d).
- Genetic testing showed Alvaro was P.A.’s biological father, creating competing paternity claims.
- The juvenile court deferred a paternity judgment and later entered a judgment of paternity for Alvaro, rebutting Roger’s presumption.
- Roger sought a hearing to balance competing paternity interests under §7612(b); the court did not conduct such balancing.
- The appellate court reversed the Alvaro judgment and remanded for a hearing to resolve competing paternity interests under §7612(b).
- The court emphasized that a balancing test must consider policy and logic, not merely biological relatedness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §7612(b) requires weighing competing paternity interests. | Roger: balancing required; biology not controlling. | Alvaro: no balancing needed; biology suffices. | Yes; a weighing/hearing is required. |
| Whether §7612(c) allows a paternity judgment to rebut a §7611(d) presumption without balancing. | Roger: no automatic rebuttal by biology. | Respondents: §7612(c) permits rebuttal by judgment. | No automatic rebuttal; requires proper weighing. |
| Whether biological paternity alone can defeat a presumed father without considering other factors. | Roger: biology not sole determinant. | Alvaro: biology might suffice. | Not alone; balancing required. |
| Whether the court could rely on a non-existent paternity judgment under §7612(c) to rebut a presumption. | Roger: requires a prior judgment, not in this case. | Respondents: contemplated by statute. | Incorrect; needed a prior valid judgment. |
| Whether the court’s failure to conduct a §7612(b) hearing was reversible error even if Alvaro’s biological status seemed strong. | Roger: error prejudiced rights to reunification and custody. | Respondents: error harmless. | Reversed; remanded for proper §7612(b) weighing. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jesusa V., 32 Cal.4th 588 (Cal. 2004) (weighing required when competing presumptions; biology not automatic rebuttal)
- In re Levi H., 197 Cal.App.4th 1279 (Cal. App. 4th 2011) (voluntary declaration can rebut presumptions; different from this case)
- In re A.A., 114 Cal.App.4th 771 (Cal. App. 2003) (prior judgment necessary to rebut presumption under §7612(c))
- In re Jerry P., 95 Cal.App.4th 793 (Cal. App. 2002) (presumed status not automatically negated by biology)
- In re M.C., 195 Cal.App.4th 197 (Cal. App. 2011) (court should weigh competing presumptions; consider relevance to multiple parents)