You don't see many intestate succession disputes in the Court of Appeal. And in reading the facts of this one, it definitely harkens back to a bygone era.
The question is whether Judy is the presumed child of Charles. If she is, then she's entitled to a large portion of the decedent's estate. By contrast, if she's not his child, then that portion goes to one of the decedent's first cousins (Wendy).
The decedent died in 2018 in San Diego. Charles was a resident of Indiana and died in 1993. Judy -- the person who may or may not qualify as Charles' presumed "child" -- was born in 1949. Here are the facts about Judy and Charles to which all the parties have stipulated, and that I suspect do not happen much in the present era (having been replaced by formal structures of foster care, court intervention and the like):
"Judy was born on April 6, 1949. Her biological parents were Dorothy Sue Davenport and Henry Lee Hayden. Judy’s biological mother abandoned her and her biological father when Judy was an infant. Judy lived with her biological father until she was two years old.
When Judy was two years old, Judy’s biological father dropped her off with Charles and [Frances], who were then living in Kentucky, and asked them to babysit. Judy’s biological father never returned. Judy continued to live in the home of Charles and Frances for the duration of her childhood.
When Judy was not more than eleven years old, Charles, Frances, and Judy moved to Indiana. When Charles, Frances, and Judy moved to Indiana, Charles and Frances openly held Judy out to be their daughter. School records from Indiana show that Judy was registered with the last name ‘Bloodgood[,’] and as a child of Charles and Frances. Charles and Frances continued to hold Judy out as their daughter for the remainder of their lifetimes. The Last Will and Testament of Charles E. Bloodgood named Judy as Charles[’s] daughter.
Judy is not Charles[’s] or his wife’s biological child, and there is no evidence she was legally adopted. Thus, any purported relationship between Charles and Judy is based solely upon Charles having taken Judy into his home and having held Judy out as his daughter. Charles and Frances knew that Judy was the biological child of another couple. . . .
Because of his own negative experience in the foster care system, Charles chose not to initiate any action to legally adopt Judy. There is no evidence that there was any legal barrier preventing Charles from legally adopting Judy during his lifetime."
The way child abandonment worked in the 1950s in Kentucky is certainly different than how it currently works in the 2020s in California, eh?
As far as I can tell, though, things worked out fairly well for Judy. She had a daughter of her own, and I presume (and hope) that she was loved by her all-but-adopted parents.
Still; having someone drop off their daughter with you for babysitting and then never return. That's got to be a shock at the time.
P.S. - The Court of Appeal agrees with the trial court that California law applies and that Judy is indeed the presumed child of Charles, hence entitled to recover under intestate succession.
