Fear Not Law Articles: Charisma R. v. Kristina S.

Charisma R. v. Kristina S.

Filed 6/9/06

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

CHARISMA R.,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

KRISTINA S.,

Defendant and Respondent.

A108213

(Alameda County

Super. Ct. No. HF04153838)

Appellant Charisma R. appeals from denial of her petition to establish a parental relationship with a child born to her former partner, Kristina S.[1] We reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider the petition in light of the California Supreme Court decision Elisa B. v. Superior Court (2005) 37 Cal.4th 108 (Elisa B.).

Factual and Procedural Background

Charisma R. and Kristina S. were a lesbian couple who began dating in July 1997, moved in together in August 1998, and registered as domestic partners with the State of California in January 2002. In 2002, Kristina became pregnant by artificial insemination from an anonymous donor, and Amalia Lynne was born in April 2003. Amalia was given a hyphenated last name which was a combination of Charisma and Kristina's last names. In July 2003, Kristina moved out of the home she shared with Charisma, taking Amalia with her. Since then, Kristina has allowed Charisma to see Amalia on only two occasions.

In May 2004, Charisma filed a petition seeking to establish a parental relationship with Amalia. In an accompanying declaration, Charisma averred that she and Kristina decided to have a child together with the intention that they would both be the child's parents. The trial court denied the petition, holding that Charisma lacked standing to bring the action under the Uniform Parentage Act (Fam. Code, § 7600 et seq.).[2]

Discussion

Under the Uniform Parentage Act, an â€

Description	Lesbian petitioner whose former partner had child through artificial insemination from anonymous donor, then left petitioner, taking the child with her, may have standing to bring action under Uniform Parentage Act to establish parental relationship with the child, and will be presumed to be child's parent, if she received child into her home and openly held out the child as her natural child. Presumption of parenthood may be rebutted where presumed parent is not the biological parent; court must consider whether presumed parent actively participated in causing child to be conceived with the understanding that she would raise child as her own together with the birth mother, whether presumed parent voluntarily accepted the rights and obligations of parenthood after child was born, and whether there are competing claims to being child's second parent.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.