In re L.C. CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 8, 2013H038493California2,216 words

Opinion

Opinion

Premo, J.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case involves two dependency petitions, one filed in 2009 and the instant petition filed in 2012.

1 Further undesignated section references are to the Family Code. L.C. lived with mother, J.M., and her half sibling, A.M. (J.M.‟s biological child), from 2008, when L.C. was six months old, to 2010, when J.M. and mother broke up. Sometime in 2008, J.M. went to jail and mother struggled with caring for L.C. by herself. She put L.C. in the care of R.C., L.C.‟s biological father. It was during the time that R.C. supposedly had custody of L.C. that the 2009 dependency was filed. The report filed for the initial hearing in the 2009 case states, “Paternity is not established. [R.C.] reports that he did not sign the declaration of paternity after the child was born. Both parents are requesting a paternity test.” During proceedings on March 9, 2009, mother‟s counsel stated that “[mother] is not opposed to presumed father status for [R.C.].” Father‟s counsel replied, “Your Honor, my client has been seeking presumed father status since the initial hearing and so we‟re happy to hear mother is not contesting that anymore.” Counsel for L.C. and…

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.