Estate of Griswold
108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 165, 25 cal. 4th 904, 24 P.3d 1191 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A natural parent's formal, in-court confession to paternity, coupled with the consistent payment of court-ordered child support, satisfies the statutory requirements for that parent's relatives to inherit from the child's intestate estate, even if no personal relationship ever existed between the parent and child.
Facts:
- In 1941, Denis H. Griswold was born out of wedlock in Ohio to Betty Jane Morris. The birth certificate identified John Edward Draves as the father.
- A week after the birth, Morris filed a 'bastardy complaint' against Draves in an Ohio juvenile court.
- Draves appeared in court and formally 'confessed in Court that the charge of the plaintiff herein is true.'
- The court adjudged Draves to be the 'reputed father' and ordered him to pay child support.
- Draves complied with the court order and paid child support for 18 years until Griswold reached the age of majority.
- Draves and Griswold never met or communicated with each other. Draves subsequently married and had two children, Margaret Loera and Daniel Draves, who were unaware of Griswold's existence until after his death.
- Draves died in 1993.
- Griswold died intestate in California in 1996, survived by his wife, Norma B. Doner-Griswold.
Procedural Posture:
- Norma B. Doner-Griswold, the decedent's surviving spouse, filed a petition for final distribution in the probate court, proposing distribution of the entire estate to herself.
- Francis V. See, an assignee of the decedent's paternal half-siblings (Margaret Loera and Daniel Draves), objected to the petition and filed his own petition to determine entitlement to distribution.
- The probate court (trial court) denied See's petition, ruling that the father, Draves, had not 'acknowledged' the child as required by statute.
- See, as the objector/appellant, appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the probate court's order, holding that both statutory requirements had been met.
- Doner-Griswold, as the petitioner/appellant, petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review, which was granted.
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 a father's formal, in-court confession to paternity in a bastardy proceeding, coupled with his consistent payment of court-ordered child support for 18 years, satisfy the 'acknowledgement' and 'support' requirements of California Probate Code § 6452, thereby allowing the father's other children (the decedent's half-siblings) to inherit from the decedent's intestate estate?
Opinions:
Majority - Baxter, J.
Yes, a father's formal, in-court confession to paternity combined with the payment of court-ordered support satisfies the requirements of Probate Code § 6452. The plain meaning of 'acknowledge' is 'to admit to be true or as stated; confess,' which is precisely what Draves did in the Ohio court proceeding. Section 6452 sets forth two distinct requirements: (a) acknowledgement and (b) support. Draves's payment of child support for 18 years undisputedly satisfies the support requirement. His formal confession of paternity in a judicial proceeding, which was never disavowed, satisfies the acknowledgement requirement. The court rejected the argument that an ongoing parental relationship is necessary, distinguishing prior cases that interpreted a different, more stringent legitimation statute (former Civil Code § 230) that explicitly required treating the child as one's own. By contrast, § 6452 does not contain such language, and the court will not insert qualifying provisions not included by the Legislature. Finally, the 1941 Ohio judgment constitutes a 'court order... entered during the father's lifetime declaring paternity' under Probate Code § 6453, thereby establishing Draves as the 'natural parent' for purposes of intestate succession.
Concurring - Brown, J.
Yes, the court must affirm, but the outcome is regrettable. While the plain language of the statute and relevant case law compel this result, it contravenes the primary purpose of intestate succession laws, which is to carry out the likely intent of the decedent. It is highly doubtful that Griswold would have wanted a share of his estate to pass to a father with whom he had no contact, let alone to that father's other children whom he never knew. The concurring opinion urges the Legislature to amend the statute to require a more substantial parental connection, such as treating the child as one's own, to avoid such 'dubious' outcomes in the future, but acknowledges that such a change is beyond the court's power.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the 'acknowledgement' requirement of Probate Code § 6452 can be satisfied by a single, formal legal act, without any need for an ongoing personal or familial relationship. The court's adherence to the statute's plain meaning prioritizes objective, verifiable acts (like a court confession and support payments) over a subjective inquiry into the quality of the parent-child relationship. This ruling establishes a clear, albeit minimal, standard that facilitates the efficient administration of estates by relying on formal records. However, as the concurrence notes, it may lead to outcomes that do not align with the presumed intent of the decedent, potentially benefiting estranged biological relatives or 'heir hunters' over those with a closer connection to the decedent.
