## Facts

- Nicholas H. was made a dependent child after allegations that his parents failed to supervise and protect him.
- Thomas G. had acted as Nicholas’s father since birth: he lived with Nicholas, supported him, and held him out as his child; his name appeared on Nicholas’s birth certificate.
- Nicholas was removed from his mother Kimberly H.’s custody and placed with Thomas, who provided a stable home.
- Kimberly had ongoing instability, including drug use, transience, and episodes of mental instability.
- Thomas admitted he was not Nicholas’s biological father; the identity of the biological father was not judicially determined.
- No other man came forward to claim paternity or seek custody or presumed-father status.

## Issues

1. Whether “natural father” in Family Code § 7611(d) necessarily means “biological father.”
2. Whether a § 7611(d) presumed-father status is necessarily rebutted under Family Code § 7612(a) solely because the presumed father admits he is not the child’s biological father.
3. Whether, in a dependency proceeding with no competing paternity claimant, the juvenile court has discretion to maintain presumed-father status to protect the child’s stability.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and affirmed the juvenile court’s orders.
- The Court held that “natural father” in § 7611(d) does not invariably mean biological father.
- The Court held that a § 7611(d) presumption is not automatically rebutted under § 7612(a) by an admission of nonbiological parentage, particularly where no other man asserts paternity.
- The Court concluded the juvenile court could treat Thomas as Nicholas’s presumed father and provide reunification services and custody based on the established parent-child relationship and the child’s need for a stable home.

## Legal Principles

- Family Code § 7611(d) creates a presumption of fatherhood when a man receives the child into his home and openly holds the child out as his natural child; the presumption can rest on an established familial relationship, not solely genetics.
- Under Family Code § 7612(a), a § 7611 presumption is rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence and only in an “appropriate action”; rebuttal is not compelled in every case where biology is disproved.
- In dependency proceedings, courts may consider the child’s welfare and stability when deciding whether rebuttal is “appropriate,” including whether any competing paternal claim exists.
- A dependency court retains discretion to preserve presumed-father status for a nonbiological father figure when the evidence shows a long-standing parent-child relationship and there is no competing paternity claimant.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a juvenile court’s discretion to recognize and maintain a nonbiological man’s presumed-father status under Family Code § 7611(d) despite his admission of nonpaternity, because § 7612(a) does not mandate rebuttal in the absence of a competing father and the dependency system prioritizes a stable, permanent home for the child.


In re Nicholas H., 28 Cal. 4th 56 (Cal. 2002)