In re Nicholas H.
46 P.3d 932; 120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 146; 28 Cal. 4th 56 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A man's legal presumption of paternity, established by receiving a child into his home and openly holding the child out as his own, is not automatically rebutted by his admission that he is not the biological father in a dependency proceeding where no other person is seeking parental rights and rebutting the presumption would render the child fatherless.
Facts:
- When Kimberly H. was pregnant with Nicholas H., she moved in with Thomas G.
- Although both knew Thomas G. was not the biological father, they agreed he would act as the father.
- Thomas G. participated in Nicholas's birth on August 10, 1995, and was listed as the father on the birth certificate.
- For several years, Thomas G. received Nicholas into his home, provided financial support, and consistently treated Nicholas as his son, forming a strong emotional bond.
- The relationship between Kimberly H. and Thomas G. was unstable, involving domestic violence and separations.
- Following a physical altercation in December 1999, Kimberly H. was arrested for assault.
- While Kimberly H. was in jail, Thomas G. took Nicholas from a relative's home to live with him.
- Kimberly H. later reported to police that Thomas had taken Nicholas without permission, leading to Thomas's arrest on an outstanding warrant and Nicholas being placed in the custody of the Alameda County Social Services Agency.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas G. filed a petition in Alameda County Superior Court to establish a parental relationship with Nicholas H. and was granted temporary custody.
- The Alameda County Social Services Agency (the Agency) filed a juvenile dependency petition, and Nicholas H. was placed in protective custody.
- The juvenile court found that Thomas G. was Nicholas's presumed father under Family Code § 7611(d) and that his admission of non-biological paternity did not rebut this presumption in this action.
- The juvenile court removed Nicholas from Kimberly H.'s custody but ordered that his placement continue in Thomas G.'s home.
- Kimberly H. appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal, as the intermediate appellate court, reversed the juvenile court's order, holding that Thomas G.'s admission he was not the biological father necessarily rebutted the presumption of paternity.
- The Supreme Court of California granted review.
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 presumed father's admission that he is not the biological father of a child automatically rebut the statutory presumption of paternity under Family Code section 7612(a), particularly when no other person is seeking to be the child's father?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brown
No. A presumed father’s admission that he is not the child’s biological father does not automatically rebut the presumption of paternity under the statute. Family Code section 7612(a) states that the presumption 'may be rebutted in an appropriate action,' which grants courts discretion to determine if the circumstances are appropriate for rebuttal. This case, where rebuttal would render the child fatherless because no other man has come forward to claim paternity, is not an 'appropriate action.' The court's primary goal is to preserve the established and stable parent-child relationship for the child's welfare, which can outweigh the lack of a biological link. The Legislature's use of 'may' in section 7612(a) contrasts with its use of 'is' in section 7612(c), which states the presumption 'is rebutted by a judgment establishing paternity... by another man,' a condition not met here. Therefore, the juvenile court acted within its discretion to maintain Thomas G.'s status as the presumed father.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the legal principle that a stable, established parent-child relationship can be more important than biological ties in determining paternity under California law. It empowers juvenile courts to prioritize a child's welfare by preserving the parental status of a non-biological but committed father figure, especially when no other potential father is present. The ruling establishes that the term 'appropriate action' in Family Code § 7612(a) is not a procedural formality but a substantive gateway for judicial discretion, preventing the application of a rigid, biology-based rule that could harm a child by leaving them legally fatherless. This strengthens the position of 'psychological parents' and clarifies that an admission of non-biology is not, by itself, sufficient to sever established parental rights if doing so would be contrary to the child's best interests.
Unlock the full brief for In re Nicholas H.