M.M. v. D.v.

66 Cal.App.5th 733 (2021)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

M.M. and Mother were in a relationship that overlapped with the time period during which Mother began a relationship with T.M. Mother discovered a pregnancy in December 2015 and informed M.M. that he might be the father. After a doctor's visit in January 2016, Mother told M.M. that based on the doctor's estimate of the date of conception, M.M. could not be the father. The Child was born in July 2016 and T.M. believed he was Child's father. T.M., therefore, signed a voluntary declaration of parentage and was listed as Child's father on the birth certificate. T.M. and Mother got married when Child was seven months old. In July 2017, a daughter was born to T.M. and Mother. The couple's daughter was discovered to have a rare genetic condition that was not present in Child, Mother, and T.M. decided to reach out to M.M. to find out if he was Child's father, rather than T.M. M.M. agreed to submit to DNA testing. The results of the DNA test established in January 2019 that M.M. is the biological father of Child. At the time, Child was two years old. Mother permitted M.M. to meet with Child on several occasions for brief periods of time. She then cut off contact after deciding that “it would be confusing and traumatizing to try to introduce a stranger into the child's life and to take away some of his time with the person he viewed as his father.” M.M. testified that if he had “known prior to January 2019 that [Child] was his biological son, he would have assumed his obligations. But he testified he never offered to pay nor has he paid any child support.” M.M. filed a petition to establish a parental relationship with Child. M.M. was seeking to be recognized as a third parent to Child pursuant to section 7612, subdivision (c). The court denied M.M.'s petition. M.M. had sought presumed parent status under the principles of equal protection and due process set forth in Kelsey S.,1 Cal.4th 816 applicable to unwed biological fathers who are thwarted in voluntarily undertaking a parental role. The trial court held that M.M. did not do enough to come forward promptly and assume parental responsibilities. The trial court explained the relevant inquiry under section 7612, subdivision (c) is whether it would be detrimental to Child to have only two parents. Because M.M. did not have an existing relationship with Child, no detriment was shown. M.M. appealed.