In Re Nicholas H.

Bad Law
110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 126·91 Cal. App. 4th 86
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 14, 2001A092188, A093477California9,693 words

Opinion

Opinion

Certified for Partial Publication. [*]

This case involves two appeals filed by Kimberly H. in an ongoing juvenile dependency proceeding pertaining to Kimberly's son, Nicholas H., who was born on August 10, 1995. We ordered the appeals consolidated because the primary issue in both cases is whether the juvenile court erroneously concluded that Kimberly's former boyfriend, Thomas G., is Nicholas's presumed father and is entitled to have Nicholas placed in his home during the pendency of these proceedings. [1]

Kimberly has consistently maintained that Thomas is not Nicholas's biological father and that he has no parental rights in these proceedings. Thomas contends that the father-son relationship he has developed with Nicholas qualifies him as a presumed father even though he admits he is not Nicholas's biological father. The Alameda County Social Services Agency (the Agency) refused to take a position with respect to this issue until we ordered it to do so. The Agency now argues that the juvenile court's finding that Thomas is Nicholas's presumed father was rebutted by evidence that Thomas is not Nicholas's biological father.

On February 7, 2000, the Agency filed a…

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.