Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
M.W. (Kim) and G.G. (H) are the biological parents of three-year-old Nathan. H is married to W and had an extramarital relationship with Kim. H asserts Kim offered to bear a child who would be raised as a child of his marriage to W. Kim contends her relationship was romantic, the pregnancy was unplanned, and that she expected they would raise Nathan jointly. Kim cared for Nathan for the first month. of his life. When Nathan was one month old, H presented Kim with an “agreement regarding custody and adoption.” Under the Agreement, H would have sole custody and Kim would have no visitation; and Kim consented to a stepparent adoption by W. H and Kim both signed the agreement. Kim did not have a lawyer when she signed the document. She contends she did not understand what she was signing and felt pressured to do so. H and Amy (W) have raised Nathan in their home since he was one month old. Kim claims that she did not understand the agreement that she had signed. Kim brought an action for custody and visitation rights. H requested that the court join W in the action and enter a judgment establishing W as Nathan’s mother. The trial court denied H’s motion to join Amy in the action. W filed a separate action against H and Kim, seeking to have herself declared Nathan’s mother. Kim moved to quash W’s separate action. The trial court granted Kim’s motion and dismissed the suit. H and W appealed to the Court of Appeal of California, which consolidated the appeal and Kim’s petition.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co