Cole

Cnty. of Orange v. Cole

Good Law
14 Cal. App. 5th 504·2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 707·221 Cal. Rptr. 3d 740·2017 WL 3481870
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 15, 2017G053375California3,093 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Fybel, J.

*507 INTRODUCTION

This is an appeal from a paternity order and a child support order. Our opinion addresses the interplay between Family Code section 7611, subdivision (d) ( *743 section 7611(d) ), 1 which defines a presumed parent, and section 7613, which addresses the legal responsibilities of a sperm donor. For the reasons we explain, a man can be a sperm donor and nevertheless be a presumed parent and responsible for child support under section 7611(d). Based on the evidence in this case, the man was a presumed parent, and we affirm the trial court's order so finding.

The sperm of Brian Jeffrey Cole was used to inseminate Mie Lynn Tsuchimoto, who gave birth to a boy (the child). 2 When the child was six years old, the County of Orange filed a complaint to declare Cole to be the child's father and to seek child support from Cole. Cole defended on the ground that under section 7613-which addresses sperm donors-he could not be the child's parent. The trial court found that, notwithstanding section 7613, (1) there was a rebuttable presumption under section 7611(d) that Cole was the child's parent because Cole had received the child into his home as his natural child and openly…

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.