Skip to content
Name: In re Cheyenne B.
Case #: B227849
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 02/28/2012

Appellant, Richard, challenged the trial court’s order denying his request to be recognized as the presumed father of the minor and finding that Dennis was the presumed father. Richard contended that his prior Judgment Regarding Parental Obligations is a judgment establishing his paternity with respect to the minor and therefore rebutted the presumption under Family Code section 7611 that Dennis was her father. He contended that under section 7636, such an adjudication establishes paternity for all purposes and therefore the trial court was without authority to make a determination with respect to Dennis. Further, he contended that substantial evidence did not support the finding that Dennis was the presumed father, and there was substantial evidence that he was the presumed father. The appellate court held that a paternity judgment establishing paternity for child support purposes is a paternity judgment which will rebut the section 7611(d) presumption. However, the rebuttal of the presumption does not require the court to find that that a man with a prior paternity judgment be designated as the presumed father of the child at issue. For such a designation to be made, the requirements of one of the categories of section 7611 must be satisfied. Here, despite Richard’s prior paternity judgment, his involvement with the minor was inadequate to establish that he fell within one of the section 7611 categories. The trial court did not err when it denied his request to be considered her presumed father.