R.M.

R.M. v. T.A.

Good Law
182 Cal. Rptr. 3d 836·2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 66·233 Cal. App. 4th 760
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 27, 2015No. D064922California8,702 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Haller, J.

— In this family law proceeding, T.A. (Mother) appeals from a judgment finding that R.M. (RM) is the presumed father of Mother’s biological daughter (Child). Mother conceived Child through artificial insemination procedures, and RM is not the biological father. The trial court declared RM to be Child’s presumed father by applying the parentage presumption set forth in Family Code section 7611, subdivision (d) (hereafter, section 7611(d)). 1 This statutory provision creates a presumption that a person is the natural parent of a child if the person shows by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she received the child into his or her home and openly held the child out as his or her own child. Also, the statutory scheme allows an opposing party to rebut the presumption by clear and convincing evidence. (§ 7612, subd. (a).)

*764 Mother claims she chose to be a single parent of Child and raises numerous constitutional and other legal challenges to the manner in which the presumed parent statutory scheme was applied in her case. Based on the fundamental constitutional right to parent one’s child without interference, she requests that we establish a rule that a decision to…

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.