In re L.L.
907; 1305; 1306; 1307; 1308; 1309; 1310; 1311; 1312; 1313; 1314; 1315; 1316; 1317; 1318; 909; 910; 911; 912; 913; 914; 915; 916; 917 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Presumed parent status under Family Code § 7611(d), once established by receiving a child into one's home and holding them out as one's own, is not rebutted by a subsequent lack of contact. However, a court may only find a person to be a third parent under § 7612(c) if that person has an existing parent-child relationship and recognizing only two parents would be detrimental to the child.
Facts:
- L.L. was born in 2006 to mother D.Z.; her birth certificate named T.L. as her father.
- T.L. lived with L.L. and her mother, acting as her father and primary provider from the time she was one year old.
- B.S., L.L.'s biological father, established a parental relationship with L.L. for the first four-and-a-half years of her life, visiting her in his home, providing support, and holding her out as his daughter.
- In 2007, a family court issued an order granting B.S. joint legal custody and visitation with L.L.
- In 2011, B.S. was sentenced to a 12-year prison term for voluntary manslaughter and had no further contact with L.L.
- In 2016, 10-year-old L.L. was taken into protective custody after drugs were found in her mother's home, initiating dependency proceedings.
Procedural Posture:
- The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency filed a dependency petition on behalf of L.L. in juvenile court.
- The juvenile court recognized T.L. as a presumed father.
- B.S. appeared in the proceedings as an alleged father and requested he be found to be a presumed father.
- The juvenile court ordered a genetic test, which confirmed B.S. was L.L.'s biological father.
- After a contested hearing, the juvenile court issued an order finding that B.S. was a presumed father under § 7611(d) and also a third parent under § 7612(c).
- T.L. and Mother (D.Z.) appealed that 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 a juvenile court err by finding a biological father to be a third parent under Family Code § 7612(c) when he lacks an existing relationship with the child, thereby avoiding the required weighing of competing paternity claims between him and another presumed father under § 7612(b)?
Opinions:
Majority - McConnell, P.J.
Yes. A court errs when it designates a person as a third parent without an existing parent-child relationship and fails to weigh competing presumed parent claims. First, the court held that presumed parent status under § 7611(d), once established, is not lost simply because of a subsequent separation or lack of contact. Because B.S. had received L.L. into his home and held her out as his child for over four years, there was substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that he qualified as a presumed father. Second, the court reversed the finding that B.S. was a third parent under § 7612(c). The court reasoned that the statute requires the putative third parent to have an existing parent-child relationship, which B.S. lacked after years of incarceration with no contact. The juvenile court also misinterpreted the law by asking if adding a third parent would be detrimental, rather than the correct standard: whether recognizing only two parents would be detrimental to the child. Because the third-parent finding was improper, there were two conflicting presumed fathers (T.L. and B.S.), and the juvenile court erred by failing to conduct the weighing process required by § 7612(b) to determine which claim was founded on weightier considerations of policy and logic.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies two critical aspects of California parentage law. It establishes that presumed parent status under § 7611(d) is a durable legal status based on historical facts, which does not simply 'fall away' due to subsequent estrangement like imprisonment. More significantly, it narrowly construes the 'third parent' statute, § 7612(c), as a remedy to prevent the harm of severing an existing parental bond, not as a tool to recognize a biological parent who lacks a current relationship. This reinforces the primacy of the § 7612(b) weighing test as the mandatory procedure for resolving conflicts between two presumed fathers where one does not have a current relationship with the child, forcing courts to make a difficult choice rather than simply adding a third parent.
