TIJERINO

City and County of San Francisco v. TIJERINO

Good Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 556·2000 Daily Journal DAR 7777·82 Cal. App. 4th 160·98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 30
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 26, 2000A083665California3,068 words

Opinion

Opinion

The advancement of technology creates new issues for the courts. One of those issues is presented when a final judgment is entered in a paternity suit and it is later determined, through genetic testing, that the legal father is not the biological father of the child. Before the birth of the child in this case, the respondent stipulated in court that he was the child's father. When the child was nearly a year old, blood tests effectively excluded respondent from paternity, and he asked the trial court set aside the judgment. The court at first refused, but later reconsidered and set aside the judgment. This appeal is taken by the county on the grounds that such reconsideration was improper as a matter of law. We agree and reverse.

On February 5, 1996, respondent signed a stipulation for entry of a judgment that he was the father of Anthony, who was about to be born to the mother of respondent's daughters, Felicia and Theresa. In the stipulation Anthony was described "as unborn Brooks" and respondent agreed to pay child support for all three children.

The two girls were already living with respondent and when Anthony was born, he also went to live with respondent.…

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.