The first line of this opinion will tell you a lot about (1) California, and (2) where the law in this area is likely to go in the future. It's a line that will strike horror (or bemused cynicism) in the minds of many viewers in different parts of the country, as well as one that would have been unlikely to have been written in most appellate courts twenty or thirty years ago.
Here's the line. Authored by Justice Duarte:
"This case involves a little girl bonded to and loved by each of her three parents."
Three parents. Controversial now (at least in some minds). Likely to be more prominently -- and more formally -- accepted in the future, I think.
It's a good case for that line. A good set of facts. So while the opinion might well be mocked by certain audiences, who might view it as a classic example of the nuttiness that is California, here are the circumstances that lead Justice Duarte to say what she does:
"The child was born in July 2012 to wife, who was then and remains married to
husband. . . . Defendants [the husband and wife] never questioned plaintiff’s status as the child’s biological father, a
fact each defendant had known before the child was born. Wife led plaintiff to believe
she was separated but continued to cohabit with husband without plaintiff’s knowledge.
Plaintiff and wife were coworkers, and wife wanted to ensure other coworkers did not
find out about the affair, which caused plaintiff to refrain from seeking paternity leave
from their employer. Plaintiff was involved with the child’s early medical evaluations
and treatment, openly held her out as his daughter, received her into his home, paid child
support, and had regular visitation until defendants cut him off after he filed the instant
petition. Plaintiff’s close relatives (sister, nieces, and mother) also developed
relationships with the child. Plaintiff had thought the child bore his last name until he
saw a prescription bottle showing otherwise, when the child was about eight or nine
months old.
Plaintiff had regular overnight parenting that increased over time to every other
weekend, and saw the child “from time to time” during the week, from when the child
was about seven months old until late in 2015, when this petition was filed. . . . [P]laintiff [paid] informal child
support payments, set in an amount determined by wife. Plaintiff only stopped paying
when defendants refused to let him continue to see the child. Plaintiff respected the
marriage and wanted to co-exist with husband; in turn, husband was committed to
maintaining his marriage and conceded that if the roles were reversed he would want to
be recognized as a third parent.
The trial court found “no doubt” the child was “well bonded to [plaintiff] and his
extended family” and that “he has established a strong, long and enduring bond with” her
that defendants had allowed to form. Plaintiff and husband were each found to be a
presumed father of the child. Weighing the two presumptions, the court found it
appropriate to recognize all three adults as parents, otherwise the child would suffer detriment. The judgment declares that the child has three parents who shall share
custody, with mediation to resolve any conflicts, and also adds plaintiff’s last name to the
child’s existing set of names, though not as her last name."
So you can see why the trial court did what it did.
The harder part is how this holding comports with California's existing statutes. Which, as you might suspect, are the product of earlier times (and thinking).
But the Court of Appeal gets around this by saying, essentially, that while the Legislature said that the husband of a child born during a marriage is conclusively presumed to be "Daddy," that doesn't mean that he's the only Daddy. You can have two (plus a Mommy). Hence the relief here.
California and the twenty-first century. Encapsulated into nineteen double-spaced pages.
