## Facts

- C.P. (mother) and J.P. (husband) were married when C.P. conceived and gave birth (July 2012) to a child; the biological father was C.A., C.P.’s coworker.
- For roughly the first three years of the child’s life, C.P. and J.P. allowed C.A. to function in an “alternate parenting role,” during which the child developed a strong bond with C.A. and his close relatives.
- In November 2015, C.A. petitioned to establish his parental relationship and sought related relief (including paternity testing).
- After C.A. filed, C.P. and J.P. excluded him from the child’s life; the trial court later found C.P. had misled the court at an interim custody hearing by minimizing C.A.’s prior involvement, contributing to an extended separation.
- Following a court trial, the superior court found this was a rare case warranting recognition of three legal parents under Family Code § 7612(c) to prevent detriment to the child.
- C.P. and J.P. appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court properly applied Family Code § 7612(c) to recognize three legal parents upon finding that limiting recognition to two parents would be detrimental to the child.
2. Whether, given multiple competing parentage presumptions (including the marital presumption and a separate presumed-parent claim), the evidence supported treating C.A. as an additional presumed parent and applying § 7612(c).
3. Whether the trial court’s findings regarding the child’s bond with C.A. and related credibility determinations were supported by the record.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- It held the trial court properly determined that J.P. and C.A. each qualified as presumed parents and that § 7612(c) authorized recognition of more than two parents.
- It upheld the finding that failing to recognize C.A. as a legal parent would be detrimental to the child, given the established parent-like bond and the circumstances of the later separation.
- It deferred to the trial court’s fact-finding and credibility determinations supporting the detriment conclusion.

## Legal Principles

- When more than two individuals qualify as presumed parents under California’s parentage statutes, a court may recognize more than two legal parents if recognizing only two would be detrimental to the child. (Fam. Code § 7612(c).)
- The § 7612(c) inquiry is child-centered: the question is detriment to the child from limiting parentage, not adult preference or convenience.
- A substantial, parent-like relationship developed over time can support presumed-parent status and, in a rare case, justify three-parent recognition when severance would harm the child.
- Appellate courts generally defer to trial courts on credibility and factual determinations regarding family relationships and the child’s welfare when supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a three-parent parentage judgment under Family Code § 7612(c), concluding that both the husband and the biological father qualified as presumed parents and that limiting the child to two legal parents would be detrimental because it would sever an established, parent-like bond the adults had allowed to form.


C.A. v. C.P., 29 Cal. App. 5th 27 (Ct. App. 2018)