## Facts

- Charisma R. and Kristina S. were in a same-sex relationship, cohabited, and registered as California domestic partners.
- The couple jointly decided to conceive a child; Kristina became pregnant by artificial insemination using an anonymous donor after joint planning and paperwork, and Charisma assisted in the insemination process.
- Their child, Amalia, was born in April 2003; Charisma was present at birth, and the child was given a hyphenated surname combining both parties’ surnames.
- After birth, the parties brought Amalia into their shared home, represented themselves publicly as two mothers, and shared parenting responsibilities.
- Within months, Kristina moved out with Amalia and thereafter restricted or cut off Charisma’s contact with the child.
- Charisma filed an action under the California Uniform Parentage Act seeking a parentage determination and custody/visitation; earlier proceedings resulted in appellate guidance that her claim could proceed.
- On remand, the trial court declared Charisma a presumed parent under Family Code § 7611(d), ordered visitation, and implemented a therapeutic reunification plan; it also addressed travel expenses related to reunification.
- Kristina appealed the presumed-parent and reunification orders; Charisma cross-appealed, arguing the trial court misunderstood its authority to allocate travel expenses.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported declaring Charisma a presumed parent under Family Code § 7611(d) despite a limited period of co-residence and shared parenting.
2. Whether recognizing Charisma as a legal parent and ordering reunification violated Kristina’s constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, including principles associated with third-party visitation cases.
3. Whether the trial court incorrectly believed it lacked discretion to allocate travel expenses associated with the reunification process.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order declaring Charisma a presumed parent under Family Code § 7611(d).
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the reunification orders, including therapeutic reunification and the structured schedule.
- The Court of Appeal rejected Kristina’s due process and equal protection challenges.
- The Court of Appeal reversed only the portion of the orders addressing travel-expense allocation and remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion.

## Legal Principles

- A person may qualify as a presumed parent under Family Code § 7611(d) by receiving the child into the home and openly holding the child out as the person’s natural child; the inquiry centers on conduct evidencing parental acceptance and public recognition, not biology alone.
- Family Code § 7611(d) does not impose an independent minimum-duration requirement; the court may evaluate the nature and quality of the parental relationship and the parties’ intentional creation of a family.
- Once an individual is properly adjudicated a legal parent, disputes over custody, visitation, and reunification are analyzed as parent–parent matters rather than as nonparent visitation, and constitutional arguments premised on third-party visitation frameworks do not control.
- A trial court must understand and apply the scope of its statutory discretion when allocating ancillary financial responsibilities associated with reunification orders, including travel-related costs.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal upheld the determination that the nonbiological same-sex coparent was a presumed parent under Family Code § 7611(d) and affirmed reunification orders against constitutional challenge, but remanded for the trial court to exercise informed discretion regarding allocation of reunification-related travel expenses.


Charisma R. v. Kristina S., 175 Cal. App. 4th 361 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)