Lugo

County of Los Angeles v. Lugo

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 21, 2025B344575California6,633 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kim, J.

BACKGROUND

A. In 2015, Lugo signed a VDOP, which was filed with

DCSS.

In March 2015, in a hospital in Los Angeles, Antoinette Martinez gave birth to a daughter, T.L. On March 15, 2015, Lugo and Martinez signed a VDOP identifying Lugo as T.L.’s biological father. On March 24, 2015, hospital staff filed the VDOP with DCSS. Upon its filing, the VDOP became generally equivalent to a judgment of parentage. (See § 7573, subds. (c)-(d); former § 7573.) As explained in more detail in the Discussion, at the time the VDOP was filed in 2015, former Family Code section 7575, subdivision (c)(1), authorized a signatory to file a motion to set aside a VDOP on the grounds described in Code of Civil Procedure section 473 within a reasonable time, not exceeding six months, after a court made an initial order for custody, visitation, or child support based on the VDOP. Effective January 1, 2020, the Legislature repealed former Family Code section 7575, subdivision (c)(1), and enacted the current version of Family Code section 7576, which authorizes a signatory to challenge a VDOP only on the grounds of fraud, duress, and material mistake of fact, and only within two years after the VDOP was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.