Charisma R. v. Kristina S.
2006 Daily Journal DAR 7152, 140 Cal. App. 4th 301, 44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 332 (2006)
Rule of Law:
A non-biological former lesbian partner may establish presumed parent status under the Uniform Parentage Act, applying Family Code section 7611, subdivision (d) in a gender-neutral manner, and this presumption cannot be rebutted solely by lack of biological tie if conditions indicate an intent to co-parent and the child would otherwise have only one parent.
Facts:
- Charisma R. and Kristina S. were a lesbian couple who began dating in July 1997 and moved in together in August 1998.
- They registered as domestic partners with the State of California in January 2002.
- In 2002, Charisma and Kristina decided to have a child together, with the intention that they would both be the child's parents.
- Kristina became pregnant by artificial insemination from an anonymous donor.
- Amalia Lynne was born in April 2003, and was given a hyphenated last name combining Charisma and Kristina's last names.
- In July 2003, Kristina moved out of the home she shared with Charisma, taking Amalia with her.
- Since July 2003, Kristina has allowed Charisma to see Amalia on only two occasions.
Procedural Posture:
- Charisma R. filed a petition in the trial court (court of first instance) seeking to establish a parental relationship with Amalia.
- The trial court denied Charisma R.'s petition, holding she lacked standing under the Uniform Parentage Act based on prior appellate court decisions.
- Charisma R. appealed this denial to the Court of Appeal, First District, Division Five.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the California Supreme Court's decision in Elisa B. v. Superior Court, which allows a non-biological former lesbian partner to be a presumed parent under a gender-neutral application of the Uniform Parentage Act and restricts rebuttal of that presumption, require a trial court to reconsider a petition to establish parental relationship that was previously denied based on superseded precedent?
Opinions:
Majority - Gemello, J.
Yes, the trial court must reconsider the petition to establish a parental relationship in light of Elisa B. v. Superior Court because that decision overruled prior precedent and established that a non-biological former lesbian partner can be a presumed parent. The trial court had previously denied Charisma's petition based on Court of Appeal decisions (Curiale, Nancy S., West) that were subsequently overruled by the California Supreme Court in Elisa B. The Elisa B. decision held that a non-biological former lesbian partner may establish parentage under the Uniform Parentage Act as a presumed parent through a gender-neutral application of Family Code section 7611, subdivision (d). This subdivision presumes parentage if a person receives the child into their home and openly holds out the child as their natural child, and section 7650, subdivision (a) allows this to apply to mother-child relationships. Furthermore, Elisa B., building on In re Nicholas H., clarified that the presumption of parenthood under section 7611 is rebuttable in an "appropriate action" only by clear and convincing evidence, and that it is generally not appropriate to rebut the presumption with evidence of a lack of biological tie if it would leave the child with only one parent. This is especially true where the presumed parent actively participated in conception with intent to co-parent, voluntarily accepted parental rights and obligations after birth, and there are no competing claims for the child's second parent. The court here emphasized that the biological mother's preference (Kristina's opposition) does not control the determination of presumed parent status. Given that the trial court's decision predated Elisa B., it did not have the opportunity to apply this new legal framework or make the necessary factual findings under it. Therefore, the case is remanded for the trial court to make specific findings on whether Charisma meets the criteria for a presumed parent under § 7611(d) and whether the conditions for precluding rebuttal of that presumption, as outlined in Elisa B., are present.
Analysis:
This case significantly impacts parentage law for same-sex couples in California by mandating the gender-neutral application of the Uniform Parentage Act's presumed parent provisions. It reinforces the public policy favoring a child having two parents to provide emotional and financial support, even when one parent is not biologically related. The decision also clarifies that the biological parent's opposition alone is not sufficient to defeat a non-biological parent's claim, especially when there was a clear intent to co-parent and the child would otherwise lose a parent. This ruling ensures that lower courts adhere to established Supreme Court precedent, providing a consistent framework for determining parental rights in evolving family structures.
