Dependency Case Law

In re Nicholas H. (June 6, 2002) 28 Cal.4th 56 [ 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 146]. Supreme Court of California.

The juvenile court held that a man, despite admitting that he was not a child's biological father, was the presumed father.

A child was adjudicated a dependent child under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 on the basis of a petition that his parents had not adequately cared for him. The man obtained temporary custody after filing a petition to establish a parental relationship with the child. The man was named as the father on the child's birth certificate, participated in the birth of the child, provided a home for the mother and the child for several years, and consistently treated the child as his son. The mother was addicted to drugs, perpetually unemployed, and violent. The biological father did not come forward to assert parental rights.

The juvenile court held that the presumption under Family Code section 7611(d) that the man was the natural father had not been rebutted by the man's admission that he was not the biological father, and awarded the man presumed father status. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision, arguing that the man did qualify as the child's presumed father under section 7611(d) but that, under section 7612(a), his admission that he was not the biological father necessarily rebutted that presumption. The man appealed.

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal decision, reinstating the man as the presumed father. Section 7611(d) states that a "man who receives a child into his home and openly holds the child out as his natural child is presumed to be the natural father of the child." The presumption that he is the natural father is a rebuttable presumption and "may be rebutted in an appropriate action only be clear and convincing evidence" under section 7612(a). The Court of Appeal, relying on In re Olivia P. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 325, argued that the juvenile court had no discretion under section 7612(a) but to find that the presumption arising under section 7611(d) was rebutted by the presumed father's admission that he was not the biological father. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, noting that the Court of Appeal's harsh interpretation of section 7612(a) would have left the child fatherless and homeless, and argued that this result was not required by section 7612(a). The Supreme Court held that a case in which no other candidate steps forward as the father is not "an appropriate action" in which to find the presumption in section 7611(d) rebutted (see In re Kiana A. (2002) 93 Cal.App.4th 1109; see also In re Raphael P. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 716.

The Supreme Court also supported its decision with section 7612(b), which states: "if two or more presumptions arise under section 7611 which conflict with each other, the presumption which on the facts is founded on the weightier considerations of policy and logic controls." The Supreme Court argued that if the Legislature had intended to preclude a man who is not the biological father from ever being a presumed father under section 7611, it would not have provided for such weighting. In addition, the Supreme Court noted that, for men who are presumed fathers under section 7611 by virtue of a voluntary declaration of fatherhood pursuant to section 7573, the Legislature allows, but does not require, a blood test to disprove presumed paternity. The Legislature would not have adopted a contrary rule that a blood test (or an admission) must defeat the claim of a man who claims presumed father status under section 7611(d).

The juvenile court's holding was affirmed.