Pangilinan

Pangilinan v. Palisoc

Good Law
174 Cal. Rptr. 3d 114·2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 586·227 Cal. App. 4th 765·2014 WL 2937896
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 1, 2014H038737California2,661 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mihara, J.

Plaintiff Mitzie Pangilinan appeals from the denial of her petition to establish a parental relationship between her son H. and respondent Hector Palisoc and obtain child support from Palisoc. She claims that the trial court erred in finding her petition untimely and in declaring that her husband, a nonparty, was H.’s presumed father. We find that the trial court prejudicially erred in finding Pangilinan’s petition to be untimely and in failing to entertain her request for genetic testing. Accordingly, we reverse the order.

I. Background

Pangilinan separated from her husband, who lives in the Philippines, in 2006 when she moved to the United States. She began a relationship with Palisoc, who was also married, in February 2008. H. was bom in November 2008. Pangilinan’s husband’s name was listed on H.’s birth certificate as H.’s father. When H. was baptized in December 2008, Pangilinan’s husband’s name was listed as H.’s father on the invitations to the baptism. Pangilinan’s relationship with Palisoc lasted until July 2011. Palisoc established and maintained a relationship with H. from the time of his birth until the end of Palisoc’s relationship with Pangilinan. However,…

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.