legal news


Register | Forgot Password

GABRIEL P v. SUEDI D.,

GABRIEL P v. SUEDI D.,
07:27:2006

GABRIEL P v. SUEDI D.,




Filed 7/25/06





CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION




IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION FOUR










GABRIEL P.,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


SUEDI D.,


Defendant and Appellant.



B181184


(Los Angeles County


Super. Ct. No. BF019995)



APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ann Dobbs, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Reversed and remanded.


Law Offices of Marjorie G. Fuller and Marjorie G. Fuller, for Defendant and Appellant.


McMillan & Tkach and John A. Tkach for Plaintiff and Respondent.


Appellant Suedi D. appeals from a judgment of paternity determining Gabriel P. to be the biological and presumed father of Seanna D. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.


FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


A. Underlying Events[1]


Suedi and Gabriel first met at an entertainment club when Suedi was approximately 15 years old and Gabriel was approximately 20 years old.[2] Gabriel then believed that Suedi was at least 21. Both were unwed.


Suedi and Gabriel began to have sexual relations, and at some point Seanna was conceived. During this period, Suedi also had sexual relations with Anthony O., who was then approximately 29 years old and also unwed. Suedi led each man to believe that he was Seanna's father. Suedi testified at trial that Gabriel seemed reluctant to enter into marriage, and thus she also pursued a relationship with Anthony.


Seanna was born in late February 2001. Just prior to Seanna's birth, Anthony effectively took up residence in the home of Suedi's mother, where Suedi lived. He accompanied Suedi to the hospital where Seanna was born, identified himself as Seanna's father, and was present during Seanna's birth. Shortly after the birth, Anthony executed a voluntary declaration of paternity. When the hospital lost this document, he executed a second voluntary declaration.


Although Suedi told Gabriel at some point that she was seeing someone else, he was unaware that Anthony and Suedi had been living together in the home of Suedi's mother. Gabriel knew about Suedi's due date and phoned her, but received no answer. He and members of his family then went to the hospital. To prevent Gabriel from encountering Anthony, Suedi arranged for others to tell Gabriel that Suedi did not want to see him and that he would not be allowed to see Seanna.


After Seanna's birth, Gabriel was not welcome in the home of Suedi's mother, where Suedi lived with Seanna and Anthony, and he made no visits there. Suedi's mother disliked Gabriel because he had not married Suedi while she was pregnant. Suedi occasionally brought Seanna to see Gabriel, and during these visits, Gabriel acknowledged his paternity and held out Seanna as his child. When Suedi stopped these visits, Gabriel was precluded from seeing Seanna.


When Seanna was about three months old, Suedi told Gabriel that he was not Seanna's father, and stated -- falsely -- that she had test results to prove it. She asked him not to contact her or Seanna any further. He followed her wishes, but repeatedly requested a copy of the test results to achieve â€





Description Where plaintiff acted as promptly as was reasonably possible to establish that he was the father of his girlfriend's child. The mother's conduct had unilaterally precluded plaintiff from meeting the statutory requirements for the status of presumed father and the mother did not marry her husband until after said child was conceived. The presumed father status of mother's husband did not bar plaintiff's action to establish himself as child's father. Where plaintiff was wrongly denied opportunity to meet requirements for presumed father status, the trial court did not err in ordering genetic testing on its own motion or in admitting results to resolve whether voluntary declaration of paternity by mother's husband should be set aside. Trial court abused discretion in ruling that plaintiff had established paternity on basis of test results without weighing competing factors favoring a finding that mother's husband was the father. Even though husband was not a party to the proceedings, mother had standing to claim that her husband was child's presumed father under statutory presumptions, and husband's voluntary declaration should not have been set aside without joining him.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale