## Facts

- L.L. was born in 2006; her birth certificate listed Mother (D.Z.) and T.L., who had long acted as her father.
- In 2007, B.S. pursued parentage-related relief in family court and obtained an order recognizing a parental relationship, awarding joint legal custody, and granting visitation.
- Evidence indicated that early in L.L.’s life, B.S. visited with her at his home, provided financial support when not incarcerated, and publicly claimed her as his child.
- Genetic testing established B.S. is L.L.’s biological father.
- In June 2016, a probation search of Mother’s home uncovered drugs, paraphernalia, and sulfuric acid; Mother was arrested and L.L. was taken into protective custody.
- In dependency proceedings, B.S. sought status as a presumed parent under Family Code § 7611(d) and recognition as a third parent under Family Code § 7612(c).
- The juvenile court found B.S. was a presumed father under § 7611(d) and also declared him a third parent under § 7612(c), resulting in three legal parents (Mother, T.L., and B.S.).
- Mother and T.L. appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for § 7611(d), misapplication of § 7612(c), and failure to conduct the § 7612(b) weighing between competing presumed fathers.
- The record reflected a significant lapse in B.S.’s contact with L.L. by the time of the dependency case and lacked evidence of a current, ongoing relationship then.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding that B.S. qualified as a presumed parent under Family Code § 7611(d) (receiving the child into his home and openly holding the child out as his natural child).
2. Whether the juvenile court properly applied Family Code § 7612(c) in declaring B.S. a third parent without determining that limiting parentage to two would be detrimental to L.L.
3. Whether the juvenile court erred by failing to resolve competing presumed-parent claims under Family Code § 7612(b) using the “weightier considerations of policy and logic” test.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the finding that B.S. was a presumed father under Family Code § 7611(d).
- The court reversed the third-parent determination under Family Code § 7612(c) because the juvenile court applied the wrong detriment inquiry and the record did not support detriment from limiting parentage to two.
- The court held the juvenile court erred by not performing the required § 7612(b) weighing between T.L. and B.S. as competing presumed fathers.
- The matter was remanded for an evidentiary hearing and factual findings applying § 7612(b), and for further proceedings consistent with that analysis.

## Legal Principles

- A man may qualify as a presumed parent under Family Code § 7611(d) without continuous co-residence; receiving the child into his home and openly holding out the child as his own may be shown through visitation in his home, support, and public acknowledgment.
- Family Code § 7612(b) requires a court faced with conflicting presumed-parent presumptions to choose between them based on “weightier considerations of policy and logic”; the court may not avoid this determination by simply adding a parent.
- Family Code § 7612(c) permits recognition of more than two parents only when limiting a child to two parents would be detrimental; the required inquiry is detriment from a two-parent limitation, not the absence of harm from adding another parent.
- Absent evidence supporting detriment from limiting parentage to two—often tied to an existing relationship with the additional claimed parent—§ 7612(c) does not authorize a third-parent declaration.

## Conclusion

The court upheld B.S.’s presumed-father status based on substantial evidence under § 7611(d), but reversed the third-parent finding because the juvenile court failed to determine (and the record did not show) detriment from limiting L.L. to two parents, and it remanded for the mandatory § 7612(b) weighing between competing presumed fathers.


In re L.L., 13 Cal. App. 5th 1302, 220 Cal. Rptr. 3d 904 (Ct. App. 2017)