M.M. v. D.V. - Case Brief

6 Mins read

M.M. v. D.V.

Case Number: D077468

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2021-07-19

Case Brief – M.M. v. D.V.

Court: COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Date: 2025-09-04
Case Number: D077468
Disposition: The judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County is affirmed.

Holding

The court held that, even assuming the appellant qualifies as a “presumed parent” under the constitutional framework of Kelsey S., the trial court did not err in denying his petition to be adjudged a third parent because substantial evidence showed he had no existing parent‑child relationship with the child, and therefore recognizing only two parents would not be detrimental to the child under Family Code § 7612(c).

Narrative

A father’s bid for a third‑parent status ends in defeat – In a tightly reasoned decision, the Fourth Appellate District affirmed a trial‑court ruling that barred a biological father, who discovered his paternity when his son was two, from being declared a third parent under California’s Uniform Parentage Act. The case spotlights the narrow scope of Family Code § 7612(c) and the high evidentiary bar for “detriment” findings, even where a father invokes the constitutional protections articulated in Adoption of Kelsey S..

Procedural backdrop – M.M. filed a petition in February 2020 seeking a court order that would add him as a third parent to his biological son, “Child.” The petition followed a DNA test in January 2019 that confirmed M.M.’s paternity. The trial court denied the petition, concluding (1) M.M. did not qualify as a presumed parent under the Kelsey S. doctrine because he failed to act promptly, and (2) even if he were a presumed parent, adding him would not be “detrimental” to the child. M.M. appealed; the appellate record consists of a settled statement, the trial court’s findings, and exhibits admitted at trial.

Factual matrix – In 2015 Mother and M.M. were in a relationship that overlapped with Mother’s nascent involvement with T.M. Mother told M.M. that a doctor’s estimate of conception excluded him as the father. When Child was born in July 2016, T.M. signed a Voluntary Declaration of Parentage (VDP) and was listed on the birth certificate. Mother and T.M. married when Child was seven months old and later had a second child, a daughter with a rare genetic condition, prompting Mother to reach out to M.M. for DNA testing. The test confirmed M.M.’s biological link in January 2019. Mother allowed brief, sporadic visits that ceased by May 2019, citing concerns that “introducing a stranger” would be “confusing and traumatizing.” M.M. never paid child support and only after the denial of his petition did he retain counsel to seek legal recognition.

Legal issues – The appeal turned on two questions: (1) whether M.M. could be deemed a “presumed parent” under the constitutional framework of Kelsey S.; and (2) whether, assuming he were a presumed parent, the trial court erred in finding that recognizing only two parents would not be detrimental to Child, thereby precluding a third‑parent order under Family Code § 7612(c).

Statutory and doctrinal framework – California’s Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), codified in Family Code §§ 7600‑7615, governs parentage determinations. § 7611 enumerates statutory presumptions of parentage (marriage, attempted marriage, VDP, conclusive presumption). § 7612(c) permits a court, in an “appropriate action,” to find more than two persons with a claim to parentage if limiting parentage to two would be detrimental to the child, emphasizing existing relationships over speculative benefits. Kelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 816 recognized a constitutional liberty interest for unwed biological fathers who are “thwarted” from obtaining presumed status, but limited that interest to fathers who promptly assert and fulfill parental responsibilities.

Court’s analysis

Presumed‑parent status. The appellate court sidestepped the Kelsey S. question, stating it would assume without deciding that M.M. qualified as a presumed parent for purposes of reviewing the § 7612(c) inquiry. Nonetheless, the court criticized the trial court’s “prompt‑action” rationale, noting that the record showed Mother had told M.M. he could not be the father based on a medical estimate—a fact that did not compel M.M. to seek testing at that time. The appellate panel therefore found no reversible error in the trial court’s conclusion that M.M. was not a Kelsey S. father, but it also held that the issue was moot to the ultimate holding.

Detriment inquiry. The heart of the decision rested on the “existing‑relationship” test articulated in In re Donovan (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1075. The court reiterated that § 7612(c) is “narrow in scope” and applies only in “rare cases” where a child truly has more than two parents who are “parents in every way.” Substantial evidence must show that removing the child from a stable two‑parent home would cause “devastating psychological and emotional impact.” The trial court’s factual findings—no real visits, no bonding, and the child’s exclusive knowledge of Mother and T.M. as parents—met that evidentiary threshold. The appellate court affirmed, emphasizing that speculative concerns about future marital instability or mental‑health issues of the existing parents, as raised by M.M., were insufficient to satisfy the statutory detriment requirement.

Conclusion and impact – The affirmation underscores California’s reluctance to expand the traditional two‑parent model absent a demonstrable, existing parent‑child relationship. Even a biological father who eventually proves paternity must show a substantive, ongoing bond to succeed under § 7612(c). The decision also clarifies that Kelsey S. rights do not automatically translate into a presumption of parentage; they merely guarantee procedural due process when a father is “thwarted” from asserting his rights. Practitioners should counsel unwed fathers that timely action—prompt testing, support, and overt holding out of the child—is essential not only for Kelsey S. protection but also for any later third‑parent petition.

Unresolved questions – The opinion leaves open how courts will treat cases where a biological father establishes a relationship after the petition but before a final ruling, or where a child’s best‑interest analysis might weigh cultural or extended‑family connections more heavily than the “existing‑relationship” standard. Future litigation may refine the balance between constitutional paternity rights and the statutory limitation on third‑parent recognition.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

  • Family Code §§ 7600‑7615 – Uniform Parentage Act provisions.
  • Family Code § 7610(a)–(e) – Definition of “natural parent” and presumptions.
  • Family Code § 7611 – Statutory presumptions of parentage (marriage, attempted marriage, VDP, conclusive presumption).
  • Family Code § 7570‑7577 – Voluntary Declaration of Parentage and its effect as a judgment of parentage.
  • Family Code § 7612(c) – Authority to recognize more than two parents when two would be detrimental to the child.
  • Family Code § 7612(b) – Conflict‑resolution hierarchy among presumptions.

Key Cases

  • Adoption of Kelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 816 – Constitutional due‑process and equal‑protection rights of unwed biological fathers.
  • In re Donovan (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1075 – Interpretation of § 7612(c) and the “rare case” limitation.
  • In re M.Z. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 53 – Requirement that a third‑parent claimant first establish a claim to parentage.
  • In re L.L. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1302 – Overview of the UPA framework.
  • J.R. v. D.P. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 374 – Treatment of a “Kelsey S.” father as a presumed parent for statutory purposes.

These authorities collectively shape the narrow pathway for a biological father to become a third parent in California.