Page 1
Child Has Two Legal Parents, Both Female, Under Family Code, No Father—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. One of the First District Court of Appeal yesterday affirmed a judgment determining that a woman who did not conceive a child is that child’s presumed mother.
Family Code section 7611(d) provides that a person who “receives the child into their home and openly holds out the child as their natural child” is a presumed parent.
A woman, denominated “R.R.,” was adjudged by Alameda Superior Court Judge Clifford Blakely, under that provision, to be the presumed mother of E.A., age 9. She was a close friend (but not a same-sex partner) of the child’s biological mother, C.A.
Blakely found that E.A. “has two parents”—R.R. and C.A.—and granted joint legal and physical custody of the child.
C.A. appealed, as did D.H., the biological father, who had donated a sperm. Blakely found that he does not qualify as a “natural parent” based on a pre-conception agreement between him and C.A. that he would not have the status of a “father.”
Pro Tem’s Opinion
Solano Court Judge Wendy Getty, sitting on assignment, authored the unpublished opinion upholding Blakely’s determinations.
Addressing C.A.’s appeal, she wrote:
“[W]e reject the theory posited by C.A. and D.H. that a woman who alleges that she meets the statutory requirements of section 7611, subdivision (d) does not have standing to pursue a parentage determination unless she has been in a sexual relationship with the biological mother. C.A. and D.H. have argued here only that R.R. is categorically exempt from being E.A.’s presumed mother. They do not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence showing that R.R. has satisfied the requirements of section 7611, subdivision (d). Nor could they, given the strength of the showing made by R.R. in her petition and at trial of her role as a second mother to E.A. Thus—having determined that R.R. had standing in this action—she is necessarily established as a presumed mother….”
Not ‘Natural Father’
Blakely found that D.H. was a sperm donor but not a natural father under Family Code §7613(b)(1)(B) in light of “by clear and convincing evidence that the child was conceived through assisted reproduction and that, prior to the conception of the child, the woman and the donor had an oral agreement that the donor would not be a parent.” He declared void a later voluntary declaration of parentage by D.H.
Getty found “the trial court’s conclusion to be amply supported by the evidence presented at trial—along with reasonable inferences therefrom—under the requisite standard of proof.”
She noted:
“The fact that C.A. and D.H. kept his status as the sperm donor a secret from everyone, including his wife and grown daughters, for two years is… circumstantial evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that C.A. and D.H. agreed that he would be a member of her supportive community rather than an actual parent to E.A. While they were not required to disclose this information to anyone or to get the consent of D.H.’s wife, that they did not strongly suggests that D.H.’s involvement in E.A.’s life was intended to be limited. Moreover, E.A. was not told about his biological connection to D.H. until he was 4.5 years old….[E]ven at that point, a distinction was made between E.A.’s two mommies and the other members of his extended community, which included D.H. and his family.”
The case is C.A. v. R.R., A167444.
Copyright 2023, Metropolitan News Company