Strahlendorf

City and County of San Francisco v. Strahlendorf

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 896·7 Cal. App. 4th 1911·9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 817·92 Daily Journal DAR 9844·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6229
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 14, 1992A053947California1,390 words

Opinion

Opinion

Peterson, J.

The City and County of San Francisco (City) appeals from a judgment dismissing its paternity suit against respondent Steven J. Strahlendorf. City argues the trial court misapplied the presumption of paternity set forth in Evidence Code section 621 when reaching its decision. We agree and reverse.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In June 1989, a young woman, Julia Lehr, applied for public assistance. As part of the process, she identified respondent as the father of her infant son Michael. City then filed a complaint against respondent seeking to establish his paternity and to hold him responsible for Michael’s support. After filing an answer, respondent challenged the complaint arguing that under section 621 another man, Daniel McGovern, was conclusively presumed to be Michael’s father, because Michael was bom while Lehr was married to McGovern. The trial court agreed and entered judgment in favor of respondent. This timely appeal followed.

II. Discussion

Before we can reach the merits of this appeal, we must turn to a procedural issue. Respondent purported to challenge City’s complaint in the court below through a motion to strike, presumably under Code of Civil…

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.