## Facts

- Amine Britel died intestate in 2011 after being struck and killed by a drunk driver.
- Jackie Stennett alleged that her minor child, A.S., conceived with Amine in 2000 and born out of wedlock, was Amine’s daughter and intestate heir.
- When informed of the pregnancy, Amine expressed that an out-of-wedlock child conflicted with his religious beliefs, told Stennett not to contact him, and stated he wanted nothing to do with her or the baby.
- Amine told a friend that Stennett wanted an abortion and later stated she had obtained one.
- Amine’s name was not on A.S.’s birth certificate; Stennett did not obtain a paternity judgment.
- Amine never met A.S., provided no financial support, and had no communications with her.
- Years later, Stennett attempted to reinitiate contact; Amine did not respond to an email and asked her not to call again.
- Although Amine maintained close ties with his family, he never told them he had a child.
- In probate proceedings, DNA evidence showed a 99.9996% probability that Amine was A.S.’s biological father.
- The probate court admitted the DNA evidence but found Stennett failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Amine “openly held out” A.S. as his child, denied Stennett’s petitions (including for administration), and treated Amine’s mother as the sole heir; Amine’s sister was appointed administrator.

## Issues

1. Under Probate Code § 6453(b)(2), what constitutes “openly held out the child as his own,” and can DNA evidence or private/limited acknowledgment satisfy that requirement?
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding that Stennett failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Amine openly held out A.S. as his child.
3. Whether § 6453(b)(2), as construed to require open acknowledgment rather than biological proof alone, violates state or federal equal protection guarantees.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying Stennett’s petitions and the determination that A.S. was not an intestate heir under § 6453(b)(2).
- The court construed “openly held out” to require the father to make an unconcealed, affirmative representation of paternity in open view.
- The court held the evidence supported the finding that Amine did not openly hold out A.S. as his child; DNA evidence of biological paternity did not satisfy the statutory criterion.
- The court rejected the equal protection challenge, concluding the statutory requirement is constitutionally valid.

## Legal Principles

- A nonmarital child seeking to inherit from an intestate father under Probate Code § 6453(b)(2) must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent openly held out the child as his own.
- “Openly held out” requires an unconcealed, affirmative representation of paternity made in open view; secret belief, private acknowledgments, or post-death genetic proof cannot substitute for the required outward conduct.
- Proof of biological paternity, standing alone, is insufficient to establish inheritance rights under § 6453(b)(2).
- Conditioning intestate inheritance on open acknowledgment (rather than DNA alone) is substantially related to legitimate state interests, including efficient estate administration and effectuating probable decedent intent, and does not violate equal protection.

## Conclusion

The court held that intestate inheritance by a nonmarital child under Probate Code § 6453(b)(2) turns on the decedent’s lifetime, public acknowledgment of the child, not genetic paternity alone, and it upheld the statute against an equal protection challenge.


Estate of Britel, 236 Cal. App. 4th 127 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)