E.C. v. J.V.

Summary

The California Court of Appeal considered whether a former same-sex partner qualified as a presumed parent under Family Code section 7611(d) based on receiving the child into her home and holding the child out as her natural child. The court held that the trial court improperly focused on the parties’ relationship, cohabitation, and other irrelevant factors rather than the appellant’s commitment to the child. It reversed and remanded for reconsideration under the proper legal standards, including possible rebuttal of the presumption under section 7612.

Holdings

1. E.C. established the first element of presumed-parent status because the undisputed evidence showed that she received the child into her home when the child was three months old. Section 7611, subdivision (d), does not require that the child be received immediately after birth.
2. The trial court applied improper criteria in evaluating whether E.C. held the child out as her natural child. The relevant inquiry is E.C.'s conduct toward the child and whether that conduct demonstrated an abiding commitment to the child and the child's welfare, not the nature of E.C.'s relationship with J.V.
3. The trial court's order could not stand because it exercised discretion under an incorrect understanding of the governing law. The proper remedy was reversal and remand for reconsideration under the correct standards.
4. If the trial court determines on remand that E.C. held the child out as her natural child and therefore qualifies as a presumed parent, it must then consider whether the presumption should be rebutted under Family Code section 7612.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court applied the correct legal standards in determining whether E.C. was a presumed parent under Family Code section 7611, subdivision (d).
2. Whether E.C. received the child into her home within the meaning of section 7611, subdivision (d).
3. Whether E.C. held the child out as her natural child under section 7611, subdivision (d).
4. Whether the trial court improperly relied on facts concerning E.C.'s relationship with J.V., rather than E.C.'s relationship with the child and commitment to the child's welfare.
5. Whether the matter should be remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion under the correct legal standards and, if presumed-parent status is established, consider rebuttal under section 7612.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded