Stennett v. Miller
245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 872
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Decedent Amine Britel died intestate; survived by his mother and two adult sisters. Biological daughter A.S., age 10 at his death, was never told of her paternity and never met or had contact with Britel. DNA after his death confirmed paternity.
- A.S.'s mother (Jackie) chose not to obtain a court paternity declaration during Britel's lifetime. After his death she sought heirship in probate and a wrongful death action on A.S.'s behalf; probate court and this court held A.S. was not an heir because Britel never "openly held out" A.S. as his child.
- The wrongful death defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing under Code Civ. Proc. § 377.60; the trial court granted the motion. Jackie appealed, arguing standing and raising state and federal equal protection challenges.
- The appellate majority held standing under § 377.60 is linked to intestate succession law: a person must have the right to inherit under Probate/Family Code definitions of parent and child to qualify as a "child" for wrongful death standing.
- Because A.S. had no heirship rights (no paternity order in the father's lifetime, and father did not hold her out), the court affirmed dismissal; it also rejected equal protection challenges (illegitimacy and gender).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a nonmarital biological child who never was held out and lacked a paternity decree during the father's life has standing under § 377.60 to sue for father's wrongful death | A.S. (via Jackie): "children" plainly includes biological children; DNA proves she is the decedent's child and thus she has standing | Defendants: § 377.60 standing is tied to intestacy—only those who can inherit (as defined by Probate/Family Code) qualify as "children" for wrongful death | Held: No standing. Standing is linked to intestate succession; A.S. lacked heirship because father never openly held her out and no paternity order was entered during his lifetime |
| Whether treating nonmarital biological children without established legal parentage differently violates equal protection as to illegitimacy | Jackie: The statute imposes burdens on nonmarital children that are not required of marital children; DNA availability makes the distinction unjustified | Defendants: Statute does not categorically exclude nonmarital children; multiple statutory paths exist to establish heirship; distinction relates to ensuring a familial/support relationship and estate administration | Held: No violation. Classification is substantially related to important governmental interests (limiting recovery to those likely to have suffered loss and protecting estate administration) |
| Whether different rules for establishing parentage for mothers vs. fathers violates equal protection (gender) | Jackie: Nonmarital children face more hurdles when the decedent is the father than when the decedent is the mother | Defendants: Mothers and fathers are not similarly situated at birth; different evidentiary rules are justified | Held: No violation. Different treatment is permissible because mothers and fathers occupy different biological/ legal positions regarding parentage |
| Whether the plain meaning of "children" controls (biological child = standing) versus construing the term by reference to intestacy law | Jackie: Ordinary meaning of "children" covers biological offspring; DNA is conclusive proof | Defendants: Context, purpose, legislative history, and prior cases show "children" must be read in light of intestate succession rules | Held: The term is ambiguous in context; legislative history and precedent tie wrongful-death "children" to intestacy definitions, not to mere biology alone |
Key Cases Cited
- Steed v. Imperial Airlines, 12 Cal.3d 115 (Cal. 1974) (wrongful death is statutory and limited to persons the Legislature designates)
- Justus v. Atchison, 19 Cal.3d 564 (Cal. 1977) (Legislature occupies field of wrongful death; claim exists only as provided by statute)
- Cheyanna M. v. A.C. Nielsen Co., 66 Cal.App.4th 855 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (standing to bring wrongful death action remains linked to intestate succession)
- Phraner v. Cote Mart, Inc., 55 Cal.App.4th 166 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (amendment from "heirs" to "children" clarified, not broadened, and ties to right to inherit)
- Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1978) (upholding paternity-decree-in-lifetime requirement against equal protection challenge in intestacy context)
- Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456 (U.S. 1988) (intermediate scrutiny applies to illegitimacy classifications; procedures burdening nonmarital children must be substantially related to important state interests)
- Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495 (U.S. 1976) (paternity decree suggests support/relationship and is probative for dependency/recovery issues)
- Estate of Britel, 236 Cal.App.4th 127 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (prior panel holding A.S. not an heir because Britel did not openly hold her out; discussed equal protection)