McBride

McBride v. Boughton

Good Law
123 Cal. App. 4th 379·20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 115·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1757·2004 Daily Journal DAR 12899·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9441
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 21, 2004A103456California6,331 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ruvolo, J.

This case calls upon us to decide, as a matter of first impression in this state, whether an unmarried man who has expended funds to support a child, in reliance on the mother’s representation that he is the child’s father, may sue the mother on an unjust enrichment theory for the return of the funds after discovering that the child is not his biological offspring. As a matter of public policy, we conclude that such a suit cannot be maintained. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment dismissing this case after sustaining the defendants’ demurrer.

I.

Facts and Procedural Background

Appellant Richard McBride was romantically involved with respondent Garianne Dashiell, then known as Garianne Boughton. At some time during 1996, presumably in the fall, McBride moved to Chile. In December 1996, however, Boughton contacted him in Chile and informed him that she was pregnant with a child that she represented was his. Based on this representation, McBride returned to the United States and took a teaching job in order to support Boughton and the child.

The child, a girl, was apparently bom on or about May 26, 1997. During the month of May 1997, McBride and Boughton…

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.