California Court of Appeal

In a child custody dispute, trial court orders declaring plaintiff a presumed parent of the child and establishing a schedule for reunification is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supports the finding that the Family Code sec. 7611(d) parentage presumption applies, as the record shows that plaintiff actively participated in the child's conception and cared for her following birth, the limited duration of her parenting of the child does not defeat plaintiff's claim to presumed parent status, and plaintiff received the child into her home and openly held her out as her natural child; 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding there is no basis to rebut the parentage presumption as substantial evidence supports the finding that the Elisa B. factors are present and that plaintiff actively participated in the child's conception with the understanding she would parent with defendant, and no other facts justified rebuttal of the parentage presumption; 3) defendant's equal protection claim fails as she has not shown that a case involving a man in plaintiff's circumstances would be decided any differently under the law, and failed to meet her burden of showing that the order declaring plaintiff the second parent was an unconstitutional infringement of her state and federal rights to substantive due process; 4) trial court did not abuse its discretion in the appointment of custody evaluators; and 5) defendant has not made a showing of judicial bias. Trial court order with respect to the allocation of defendant's travel expenses is reversed and remanded.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/26/2009
• Published 06/26/2009

Judges

• SIMONS, Acting P.J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP, Amy E. Rose, Robert J. Guite and Jason M. Richardson, San Francisco, for Plaintiff and Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Liberty Counsel and Mary E. McAlister, Orlando, FL, for Defendant and Appellant.