Skip to content
Name: In re D.A.
Case #: B230987
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/28/2012
Summary

Biological father should have been determined to be the presumed father where he sought to assert paternal rights but was kept from contact by mother. The six-month-old minor, D.A. was detained from his mother, and placed with E.A., whom the trial court ruled was D.A.’s presumed father. E.A. was not married to mother, was not the biological father, and had only lived with mother for two weeks before and two weeks after D.A.’s birth. Genetic testing revealed that another man, C.R. was the biological father. C.R. was engaged to be married to mother. As soon as C.R. was identified as the biological father, he consistently sought to be determined to be D.A.’s presumed father. The trial court denied those requests and ordered C.R. to have only two supervised visits a month. C.R. appealed from the trial court’s rulings on paternity and visitation. The appellate court reversed and remanded. Neither the order determining E.A. to be the presumed father, nor the trial court’s denial of C.R.’s request to be determined to be a presumed father is supported by substantial evidence. C.R. was a presumed father under Kelsey S. because he was the biological father, he took mother to doctor’s appointments and offered to pay expenses, and he was kept from D.A. only because mother refused him contact. E.A., on the other hand, only lived with mother for a few weeks and did not openly and publicly admit paternity.