Estate of Britel v. Britel
236 Cal. App. 4th 127, 186 Cal. Rptr. 3d 321 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California Probate Code section 6453(b)(2), for a nonmarital child to establish a parent-child relationship for intestate succession, the father must have 'openly held out' the child as his own, which requires an unconcealed, affirmative representation of paternity made in open view; a private admission of paternity is insufficient.
Facts:
- In 1999, Amine Britel and Jackie S. began a romantic relationship after meeting in business school.
- In August 2000, Jackie informed Amine she was pregnant with his child.
- Amine responded via email that he was 'devastated' and that having a child out of wedlock would bring shame to his family due to his Muslim religion and culture, and he could never tell his parents.
- Amine subsequently told Jackie not to contact him again and that he wanted no relationship with her or the baby.
- A.S. was born in February 2001; Amine was not listed on the birth certificate, never met her, and never provided any financial support.
- Amine told his best friend that Jackie had an abortion and never discussed the matter again, and he never told his own family about A.S.'s existence.
- When Jackie contacted Amine in 2006, he was 'terse and cold' and reiterated his demand for no contact with him or his family.
- In 2011, Amine Britel died intestate in a bicycle accident.
Procedural Posture:
- After Amine Britel died intestate, Jackie S. filed a petition in probate court to administer his estate and have her child, A.S., declared his legal heir.
- Amine's sister, Mouna Britel, filed a competing petition to administer the estate, identifying Amine's mother as the sole heir.
- The trial court held a hearing and admitted DNA evidence establishing a 99.9996% probability that Amine was A.S.'s father.
- The trial court found that Jackie S. failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Amine had 'openly held out' A.S. as his own child and denied her petitions.
- The trial court granted Mouna Britel's petition for letters of administration.
- Jackie S., as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the California Court of Appeal.
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 California Probate Code section 6453(b)(2), which requires a father to have 'openly held out' a child as his own for that nonmarital child to inherit through intestacy, violate the equal protection rights of nonmarital children who can prove paternity with DNA evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Ikola, J.
No. California Probate Code section 6453(b)(2) does not violate the equal protection rights of nonmarital children because the 'openly held out' requirement is substantially related to important state interests. The standard requires an unconcealed, affirmative representation of paternity in open view, not merely a private acknowledgment. The court reasoned that the plain meaning of 'openly' signifies an act that is unconcealed and exposed to general view, which is distinct from a private admission. This standard serves two key state interests in intestate succession: 1) effectuating the decedent's likely intent, as a father who publicly acknowledges a child is more likely to intend for that child to inherit; and 2) ensuring the orderly and efficient administration of estates by preventing claims from 'secret' heirs that could cause significant delays and uncertainty. The court distinguished this case from child support law, noting that intestacy law focuses on the decedent's property rights and presumed intent. Citing Lalli v. Lalli, the court affirmed that states have a significant interest in the orderly disposition of property at death, and this statute is substantially related to that interest, even in the age of DNA testing.
Concurring - Fybel, J.
Yes, I concur with the majority's legal analysis that under current law, A.S. cannot inherit and the statute is constitutional. However, I write separately to urge the California Legislature to amend the statute. In light of significant advances in DNA science, the law is outdated. The legislature should consider adding a provision that allows a nonmarital child to establish paternity for inheritance purposes with clear and convincing DNA evidence combined with proof that the father, during his lifetime, privately acknowledged fathering the child. Such an amendment would better serve societal interests in protecting innocent children and their financial well-being, even if their father did not meet the statute's narrow 'openly held out' standard.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a strict interpretation of the 'openly held out' standard in California's intestacy law, emphasizing public conduct over biological reality. It establishes that even conclusive DNA evidence cannot overcome the statutory requirement for an open, public acknowledgment of paternity, thus creating a significant barrier for nonmarital children whose fathers kept their existence secret. The ruling reinforces the primacy of the state's interests in executing a decedent's presumed intent and ensuring orderly estate administration over a nonmarital child's claim based solely on a biological link. This precedent will make it very difficult for children in similar situations to inherit from an intestate father, pushing the debate over the statute's fairness in the modern era of genetic testing to the legislature.
