## Facts

- Richard Paul McBride and Garianne Boughton were in a romantic relationship; McBride moved to Chile in fall 1996.
- In December 1996, Boughton told McBride she was pregnant and represented that he was the father; McBride returned to the United States and obtained employment to support Boughton and the expected child.
- The child was born in late May 1997.
- McBride alleged the parties agreed he would support Boughton for a year so she could stay home with the child; later, McBride resigned his job to become the child’s full-time caregiver.
- After Boughton moved out in late 1998, McBride continued caregiving for several months and then returned to work; the parties informally arranged visitation/custody time.
- In October 1999, McBride filed a paternity action seeking custody; genetic testing excluded him as the biological father.
- McBride filed a civil action seeking restitution for money spent and services provided in reliance on Boughton’s representation of paternity, asserting unjust enrichment and related quasi-contract theories (and expressly not pursuing tort damages).

## Issues

1. Whether an unmarried man who voluntarily supported a child in reliance on the mother’s representation of paternity may recover those expenditures from the mother in restitution/unjust enrichment after learning he is not the biological father.
2. Whether public policy and the statutory family law scheme preclude quasi-contract restitution for child support paid under a mistake of paternity.
3. Whether the complaint alleged a cognizable “unjust” retention of a benefit by the mother where the expenditures primarily benefited the child.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of dismissal after the trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend.
- As a matter of public policy, restitution/unjust enrichment claims seeking reimbursement of voluntary child-support expenditures made under a mistaken belief of paternity are not maintainable against the mother.
- The court reasoned that the claimed benefit was chiefly the child’s support rather than the mother’s personal enrichment, and allowing reimbursement suits would conflict with child-welfare and support-stability policies.
- The court also relied on the Legislature’s comprehensive framework governing paternity and support, concluding that a separate restitution action would circumvent that structure.

## Legal Principles

- Unjust enrichment/restitution requires a benefit conferred and retention that is unjust; expenditures primarily for a child’s support generally are not treated as an unjust enrichment of the custodial parent.
- Courts strongly disfavor reimbursement of voluntary child-support payments later claimed to have been made under a mistake of paternity, based on child-centered policy and the need for stability and continuity of support.
- Equity will not reallocate years of voluntary parental support between adults through quasi-contract where doing so would undermine the support system and family-law policies.
- Paternity and support disputes are addressed within the statutory family-law scheme; once nonpaternity is established, relief is prospective, and retroactive reimbursement is not available through restitutionary pleading.

## Conclusion

The court held that public policy and the statutory family-law framework bar an unmarried man from recovering, via unjust enrichment or related quasi-contract theories, child-support expenditures voluntarily made while he believed he was the child’s biological father, even if that belief resulted from the mother’s misrepresentation.


McBride v. Boughton, 123 Cal. App. 4th 379 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)