## Facts

- Mother conceived a child while sexually involved with both M.M. and T.M.
- During pregnancy, Mother told M.M. he was not the biological father.
- After the child’s birth, T.M. signed a voluntary declaration of parentage; Mother and T.M. later married, and T.M. functioned as the child’s legal father.
- About two years later, DNA testing confirmed M.M. was the biological father.
- Mother allowed several brief visits between M.M. and the child, then ended further contact.
- M.M. did not pay or offer financial support and admitted he had no existing parent-child relationship.
- M.M. petitioned to be declared a presumed parent under the constitutional doctrine for unwed biological fathers (Kelsey S.) and, alternatively, to be recognized as a third legal parent under Family Code § 7612(c).
- The trial court denied relief, finding M.M. did not promptly assume parental responsibilities and that limiting the child to two parents (Mother and T.M.) would not be detrimental.

## Issues

1. Whether a biological father who learns of paternity when the child is about two years old, and then fails to assume emotional and financial responsibilities, qualifies as a presumed parent under the Kelsey S. doctrine despite alleged maternal interference.
2. Whether a biological father without an established parent-child relationship may be recognized as a third legal parent under Family Code § 7612(c) absent evidence that limiting the child to two legal parents would be detrimental.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment denying M.M.’s parentage petition.
- M.M. was not entitled to presumed-parent status because, after learning of paternity, he did not promptly and fully assume emotional, practical, and financial parental responsibilities.
- M.M. was not entitled to third-parent status because he failed to show detriment to the child from having only two legal parents, and he had no established parental relationship to protect.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Kelsey S. doctrine, an unwed biological father seeking constitutional protection as a presumed parent must promptly come forward and demonstrate a full commitment to parental responsibilities, including emotional, financial, and practical support, once he knows or reasonably should know of paternity.
- Maternal conduct may be relevant, but the father must still show he did all that was reasonably possible under the circumstances and that his lack of parental role was not attributable to his own failure to assume responsibility.
- Family Code § 7612(c) permits recognition of more than two legal parents only if limiting the child to two parents would be detrimental to the child, based on child-centered considerations such as psychological bonds, stability of existing relationships, and harm from disruption.
- A request for third-parent recognition cannot rest on biology alone; it requires evidence of detriment to the child, typically where the child already has more than two established parent-child relationships.

## Conclusion

The court held that biological paternity, without prompt assumption of parental responsibilities and without evidence that the child would be harmed by limiting legal parentage to two existing parents, does not support presumed-parent status under Kelsey S. or third-parent recognition under Family Code § 7612(c).


M.M. v. D.V., 66 Cal. App. 5th 733, 281 Cal. Rptr. 3d 361 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)