In re L.P. CA3

DISCUSSION

Father’s sole contention on appeal, which appears completely unsupported by the record provided to us, is that the juvenile court erred by failing to designate him as L.P.’s presumed father. (Fam. Code, § 7611.)1 He claims that he received L.P. into his home and openly held her out as his own, which meets the requirements of presumed father designation pursuant to section 7611, subdivision (d).

Undesignated statutory references are to the Family Code. 2 He adds an undeveloped claim that he is entitled to designation as a “Kelsey S. presumed father” (see Adoption of Kelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 816), and briefly argues

3 The record does not reflect that father ever asked the juvenile court, formally or informally, to be so designated. Nor at any point did he object to his designation as L.P.’s biological father (rather than her presumed father) in the juvenile court, despite multiple hearings at which he was openly classified as such. “[A] reviewing court ordinarily will not consider a challenge to a ruling if an objection could have been but was not made in the trial court. [Citation.] The purpose of this rule is to encourage parties to bring errors to the…