A California Court of Appeals has resolved an issue that should have come before the appellate courts earlier, but it didn’t. The key issue to resolve in this new case was what happens when the biological father doesn’t want anything to do with his child and mother’s new man tries to raise that child as his own? Should biological father be allowed to get away with not paying child support by arguing that the man raising his child is the presumed father of the child because he took the child into his home and held him out as his own child [California Family Code Section 7611(d)]?
In reversal, a California Court of Appeals has just ruled that a Trial Court was wrong by determining that a man who provided care for and lived with another mans biological Child and Childs Mother is Childs presumed parent and that this relationship rebutted the presumption established by paternity testing that the other man is Childs Bio Father.
In the case ofCounty of Los Angeles v. Christopher W., about two months after Mother and Bio Father ended their personal relationship, Mother told Bio Father that she was pregnant with his Child. In December 2013, Mother began dating another man (Other Man), who was well aware of Mothers pregnancy. Mother and Bio Fathers Child was born in May of 2014. Other Mans friends had teased him about becoming a daddy and someone put up a sign in Mothers room giving congrats to Mother and Other Mans on Childs birth.
When Bio Father went to the hospital to see Mother and Child, he saw the sign. Bio Father held Child briefly, but refused to sign Childs birth certificate, leaving no one listed as Childs father. Other Man, who had spent time with Mother before and after Childs birth, drove Mother and Child home from the hospital. During the next two years, Other Man saw Child about once a week for an hour and a half. Bio Father, on the other hand, saw Child only twice after holding Child at the hospital. Mother finally told Bio Father that she didnt want him in Childs life, after which Bio Father neither saw nor financially supported Child.
In May of 2016, Mother, Other Man, and Child got a place together. They kept their finances separate and Other Man gave Child no financial support. However, Other Man played with Child, watched TV with him, took care of him in Mothers absence, and disciplined him. Child began calling Other Man Daddy along with Other Mans given name. Other Man was never listed as Childs father on any records nor had he held himself out as Childs father to Childs doctors. However, for a period of time, Other Man posted various photos of himself and Child on his Facebook page, with captions referring to Child as his boy and to himself as daddy.
On April 1, 2015, Los Angeles County, through its child support division, filed a complaint to establish Mother and Bio Father as Childs parents and to obtain a child support order requiring Father to pay $1,420 per month to the State Disbursement Unit. In a response filed May 1, 2015, Bio Father denied being Childs father, asked for paternity testing, and claimed that someone else had been claiming to be Childs bio dad. Bio Father followed up with a motion to join Other Man in the proceeding as Childs presumed father under California Family Code Section 7611(d) [man who receives child into his home and holds child out as his]. Seeing no opposition to the motion, Trial Court granted it and permitted Bio Father to file a petition to establish Mother and Other Man as Childs parents. Mother and Other Man each shot back responses, asserting that Bio Father was Childs Bio Father. Genetic testing subsequently established that Bio Father is Childs bio dad.
After an evidentiary hearing in August 2017, Trial Court issued a statement of decision on November 30, 2017. In it, Trial Court determined that Other Man was Childs presumed father under California Family Code Section 7611(d), based on his Facebook postings displaying nothing short of a parent-child relationship which Other Man had nurtured. Trial Court further determined that Bio Father qualified as Childs presumed father under California Family Code Section 7555 due to the genetic testing results. However, Bio Fathers presumption (based on test results) was not as strong as Other Mans (based on relationship with Child). In June of 2018, Trial Court entered judgment naming Mother and Other Man as Childs parents, but did not enter a child support order.
Mother appealed, and after addressing some procedural issues, Court of Appeals has now reversed Trial Courts decision. The Appellate Court has ruled that (1) a person responsible for childs existence has a duty to support that child; (2) at the time of these proceedings, Family Code Section 7555(a) provided that a paternity presumption established by genetic testing could be rebutted only by particular types of evidence, which did not include a lack of relationship between the bio dad and the child or a closer relationship between the child and another man; (3) rebutting a paternity presumption under Family Code Section 7811(d) may be appropriate where enforcing the presumption imposes support obligation on an unwilling candidate; (4) Other Man never sought parental status and his relationship with Child would not be adversely affected by naming Bio Father as Childs parent (Mother and Other Man specifically asked Trial Court not to name Other Man as Childs parent); (5) as the man responsible for Childs existence, Bio Father should be named as Childs parent for child support purposes; (6) no existing decision has held that a bio dad should be relieved of his obligation of support and that obligation foisted on an unwilling Family Cod Section 7611(d) presumed father (taking child into his own home as his own child). Appellate Court reverses Trial Courts Judgment and concludes that clear and convincing evidence of Bio Fathers biological paternity rebutted the Family Code Section 7611(d) presumption regarding Other Man.