CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Presumptions & Burden of Proof
......Misc. Presumptions: Civil
.........Family Law & Juvenile Presumptions
............Paternity
 58 Cards On This Topic:
  • Conclusive presumption of paternity. Limited exceptions.
  • Conditions for person to be child's natural parent.
  • Rebutting FC 7611 presumption.
  • Rebuttable presumption of paternity if paternity index is 100 or greater.
  • Effect of pre-1997 voluntary declarations of paternity.
  • Minor's declaration of paternity creates rebuttable presumption of paternity.
  • Under circs, no abuse of discretion in finding this not an appropriate action to rebut stepfather’s claim to presumed fatherhood; court must weigh all relevant factors—incl. biology—in determining which presumption of fatherhood paramount.
  • Incarcerated father was not denied any statutory or constitutional rights when juvenile ct. determined his presumed father status in his absence where his attorney was present.
  • Where no one else was a candidate for the privilege and
    responsibility of fathering child, it was not ••an appropriate
    action•• in which to find section 7611(d) presumption of fatherhood
    rebutted.
  • Alleged biological father has no constitutionally protected liberty interest defeating Cal.'s statutory presumption favoring husband.
  • Absent clear and convincing showing of unfitness, equal protection and due process require nonpresumed biological father be allowed to withhold consent to adoption.
  • Substantial evidence supported finding F was presumed F, but not BioDad, where evidence was conflicting, and seemed possible he was, but also possible he was not, BioDad.
  • Given juvenile court's determination that biological F and C lacked an existing parent-child relationship, court erred in applying section FC §7612(c) to find F was C's presumed F and 3d parent.
  • Given the lack of full financial commitment and the negative emotional effect of his cyber-stalking during pregnancy, trial court did not err in concluding D was not a Kelsey S. father.
  • F whose bad decisions kept him from carrying out parental responsibilities didn't meet the high bar set by Kelsey S., and it was error to grant him presumed F status instead of C's stepfather, who did meet the Kelsey S. requirements.
  • FC 7613(b) does not preclude sperm donor from establishing he is a presumed father under FC 7611; Steven S. not controlling.
  • Under amended FC 7630(c), ex-boyfriend claiming to be C's father is entitled to bring action to determine the existence of the father and child relationship even though husband is a presumed father.
  • DNA test showing boyfriend was not C's father were not dispositive of his right to participate in dependency proceedings, but he was not entitled to PF status merely because he signed a VDP.
  • Trial ct. had the authority to set aside VDP where mother lied about D being the only possible father, and blood tests showed he was not; competing paternity presumptions properly resolved in P’s favor.
  • Although BF did everything he could to be a father to C, he must also show an existing familial bond with C sufficient to warrant giving him "equitable" presumed father status.
  • Judgment establishing fatherhood for ••c/s purposes•• is a paternity judgment w/in meaning of FC 7612(c), and rebuts FC 7611(d) presumption; rebuttal does not require finding that a man with a prior paternity judgment is a presumed F.
  • Substantial evidence supported finding father's visitation with C was not consistent and regular and, thus, was not sufficient to satisfy the requirement that he received her into his home.
  • Remand required where trial court misapplied the law re UPA presumed parent status and erred in finding P failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was a presumed parent.
  • Trial court erred in finding biological F was not a presumed F where he did everything required to qualify under Kelsey S. was then cut off from contact with C by mother and court.
  • Juvenile court must weigh conflicting presumptions as between 3 presumed parents under FC 7612(b) standard and in view of circumstances after the parentage determination was made.
  • Trial court erred in ordering genetic testing in paternity action when RPI had no standing as a presumed father except a voluntary declaration of paternity executed and rescinded by a married woman—declaration void and had no effect.
  • No error in not declaring F presumed father where he did not establish that he came within any FC 7611 category—he did not establish he received Cs into his home or openly held them out as his natural children.
  • Sufficient evidence showed Charisma openly held C out as her natural child, there was ample evidence of a parental relationship, and proper factors were considered in determining she was a presumed parent under FC 7611(d).
  • No abuse of discretion in concluding there was no basis under FC 7612(a) to rebut parentage FC 7611 parentage presumption.
  • For presumed parenthood, receipt of C into home must be sufficiently unambiguous as to constitute a clear declaration regarding the nature of the relationship, but need not continue for any specific duration.
  • Court may not set aside default paternity judgment because nonparty mother did not cooperate with court-ordered genetic testing.
  • Biological F's voluntary declaration of paternity functioned as a judgment of paternity under FC 7573, trumping ex-boyfriend's rebuttable paternity presumption under FC 7611 (d).
  • Even had biological F successfully demonstrated he was presumed F under Kelsey S., that alone not sufficient to overcome judgment of paternity represented by voluntary declaration of paternity signed by another.
  • Juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in declining to set aside VDP, where best interests of C would not be furthered by doing so, and no other procedure for setting aside VDP was available to D.
  • F had standing to file paternity action wherein D's voluntary paternity declaration set aside as F had status as a Kelsey S. father, and FC 7575 did not preclude his filing action.
  • Alleged F trying to establish nonexistence of paternity is an interested party under FC 7630 (b), if he alleges there are facts, which if believed, show he might qualify as a presumed father under FC 7611 (d) and have standing.
  • Biological F may try to establish PF status despite competing presumptions supporting H who executed voluntary paternity dec.; court must join declarant and evaluate his competing claims b/f set aside.
  • Wife of man who fathered C in an extramarital relationship may not assert status as C’s mother when the biological mother has come forward promptly to assert her maternal rights.
  • Cal.'s statutory presumptions and standing rules do not violate biological father's constitutional rights where biological father has no existing relationship with C.
  • Although trial court, following law at time, did not abuse discretion in denying mtn to modify c/s to 0 based on DNA report, D can proceed in trial ct. to have paternity judgment set aside under newly enacted FC 7645 et seq.
  • P had standing to bring paternity action as presumed father; trial court erred in refusing to apply Nicholas H. where C was not a dependent child, and gave considerable weight to P's biological non-paternity.
  • Even if biological father had not waived right to argue it, he did not establish his substantive due process rights were violated where evidence showed he was not a father w/in meaning of Kelsey S.
  • Where F did not establish himself as presumed father w/in meaning of FC 7611(d), there were no competing presumptions for court to balance in naming another as conclusively presumed F.
  • Where conflicting presumptions arise under FC 7611 (a), and (d), under FC 7612, court must make factual findings re each presumption and then weigh which presumption is entitled to greater weight.
  • Presumed fatherhood status, for purposes of dependency proceedings, not necessarily negated by evidence the presumed father is not the biological father.
  • Court erred in denying F presumed father status in dependency proceeding based upon blood test confirming he was not minor's biological father.
  • Where parties make prima facie showing that father executed a voluntary declaration of paternity, they are permitted to rely on EC 664 that official duty was regularly performed; burden shifts to DSS to rebut presumption.
  • Presumption of paternity overcome by man's testimony that he did not have access to mother during conception despite genetic paternity index of 1290.
  • Due process clause precludes state from applying conclusive presumption of paternity where it has effect of terminating ••existing•• father-child relationship.
  • Conclusive presumption of paternity properly applied in dissolution and paternity cases despite biological reality because presumed father had established relationship with child.
  • Conclusive presumption of paternity not applicable where H not cohabiting with W at time child conceived; cohabitation defined.
  • Evidence of mere existence of other untested sex partners insufficient to rebut statutory presumption of paternity based on genetic testing.
  • Court properly refused to apply conclusive presumption of paternity re void marriage where blood tests on 3-yr old established another to be biological father.
  • Conclusive presumption of paternity not applied to husband where presumption's underlying policies not furthered.
  • Presumption of paternity may be invoked only when husband and wife cohabiting at time of conception, not birth.
  • Paternity presumptions do not apply in case determining validity of traditional surrogacy contract; mother can be determined without regard to presumptions.
  • Paternity challenge rejected after death of alleged father unless man a presumed father under former Civ. Code sec. 7004; DNA testing not permitted.
  • Paternity presumptions.


    •