Sat. Apr 13th, 2024
grandparents rightsgrandparents rights

Good News For Grandparents

Third PRESUMED PARENT Family Code 7612(C) –
Requires Established Relationship Required

New Non-Dependency Caselaw

Family Code 7612(c)

California is one of the only states that provides and protects a third parent’s right to parent under certain circumstances. Non-traditional relationships, platonic parenting, grandparents involved in children’s lives, and polyamorous relationships are more common than ever making a need for a third parent recognition. 

In 2013, California enacted Family Code Section 7612(c) “three-parent” law, which provides a child may have a parent-child relationship with more than two parents. The statute allows for the recognition of non-biological parents in addition to biological parents.

Download a PDF about Psychological Parentage, Troxel,  and the Best Interests of the Child.

 

Download a good PDF to read about Three Parent Law
The State Bar of California family law news issue4 2017 vol. 39, no. 4.pdf

 

 

 

M.M. V. D.V.

Published 7/19/21; Fourth Dist., Div. One. Docket No. D077468

In re M.C. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 197

In 2013, California enacted Family Code §7612(c), a groundbreaking law, which provides that a child may have a parent-child relationship with more than two parents. Prior to the enactment of the new “three parent law,” a biological parent had to terminate his or her rights before a non-biological parent could be legally recognized as a parent. By removing the two parent legal limitation, the new law allows for, among other things, the recognition of non-biological parents in addition to two biological parents.

Family Code §7612(c) permits the recognition of more than two parents in cases where “recognizing only two parents [i.e., biological parents] would be detrimental to the child.” In deciding whether to recognize more than two parents for a child, the Court will consider all relevant factors, including the harm of removing the child from a stable placement with a parent who has fulfilled the child’s physical needs and psychological needs for care and affection, and who has assumed that role for a substantial period of time. (Family Code §7612(c)).

The law was enacted in the wake of the California Court of Appeal’s ruling in the complex and heartbreaking case In re M.C. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 197. In that case, the child was placed into foster care after her biological mother, and the only parent listed on the child’s birth certificate, was incarcerated. The child’s biological father was virtually absent from the child’s life in a different state, and was not a presumed parent under the law because the parents were never married. The child’s court appointed counsel sought to keep the child out of foster care by arguing that the child had an additional parent: the biological mother’s same-sex partner who was married to the biological mother at the time the child was born. Although the Court was sympathetic to the need for a change in the parentage law, it concluded that the legislature would have to move first. As a result, the child was left in foster care. Fortunately, the legislature responded to the Court’s invitation to change the law so that similar tragedies need not be repeated. https://www.boydlawlosangeles.com/boyd-law-successfully-achieves-one-of-californias-first-rulings-under-new-three-parent-law/

 

 


THE EXISTENCE OF AN ESTABLISHED PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP IS REQUIRED TO QUALIFY AS A THIRD “PRESUMED PARENT” UNDER FAMILY CODE 7612(C).

In re M.C. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 197

Mother was in a relationship with two men, M.M. and T.M., at the same time. When she discovered she was pregnant, mother told M.M. that he could not be the father based on the timing of conception. When the child was born, T.M. signed a voluntary declaration of parentage and was listed as the father on the birth certificate. T.M. and mother then married. When the child was 2½ years old, DNA testing determined M.M. to be the biological father. Mother allowed M.M. to meet with the child for a brief time but then cut off contact because she thought it would be “confusing and traumatizing” to introduce a stranger into the child’s life. M.M. filed a petition to be declared a third presumed parent within the meaning of Family Code 7612(c). However, M.M. also argued that he should be accorded “presumed father” status as a Kelsey S.-father because mother, by denying him access to the child, had prevented him from establishing himself as presumed father. M.M. testified he would have assumed his obligations had he known the child was his, but acknowledged he never paid nor offered to pay child support.

Affirmed. Family Code 7612(c) allows a third presumed parent-finding “if the court finds that recognizing only two parents would be detrimental to the child.” Because only a person “with a claim to parentage” is eligible to be a third parent, the person must first show that he or she qualifies to be a presumed parent – a status which is based on familial relationship rather than any biological connection. Moreover, this parent-child relationship must be shown before determining whether recognition of only two parents would be detrimental to the child. Here, M.M. neither qualified as a Kelsey S.-presumed father (having failed to show a full commitment to his parental responsibilities) nor a presumed parent under the definitions listed in 7611. Lastly, even if M.M. had qualified as a presumed parent, this was not an “appropriate action” in which to find a child has more than two parents. Legislative history shows this provision was intended to be narrow in scope and apply only in “rare cases” in which a child “truly has more than two parents” who are parents “in every way.” Accordingly, an “appropriate action” for application of 7612(c) is one in which there is an existing parent-child relationship between the child and the putative third parent such that recognizing only two parents would be detrimental to the child. Here, M.M. had the burden to show an existing meaningful relationship between the parent and the child, but none existed between him and the child. (ML)

cited https://www.clccal.org/blog/dependency-legal-news-vol-17-no-6/


 

2017 California Code
Family Code – FAM
DIVISION 12 – PARENT AND CHILD RELATIONSHIP
PART 3 – UNIFORM PARENTAGE ACT
CHAPTER 2 – Establishing Parent and Child Relationship
Section 7612.

Universal Citation: CA Fam Code § 7612 (2017)

7612.

  • (a) Except as provided in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 7540) and Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 7570) of Part 2, a presumption under Section 7611 is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted in an appropriate action only by clear and convincing evidence.
  • (b) If two or more presumptions arise under Section 7610 or 7611 that conflict with each other, or if a presumption under Section 7611 conflicts with a claim pursuant to Section 7610, the presumption which on the facts is founded on the weightier considerations of policy and logic controls.
  • (c) In an appropriate action, a court may find that more than two persons with a claim to parentage under this division are parents if the court finds that recognizing only two parents would be detrimental to the child. In determining detriment to the child, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the harm of removing the child from a stable placement with a parent who has fulfilled the child’s physical needs and the child’s psychological needs for care and affection, and who has assumed that role for a substantial period of time. A finding of detriment to the child does not require a finding of unfitness of any of the parents or persons with a claim to parentage.
  • (d) Unless a court orders otherwise after making the determination specified in subdivision (c), a presumption under Section 7611 is rebutted by a judgment establishing parentage of the child by another person.
  • (e) Within two years of the execution of a voluntary declaration of paternity, a person who is presumed to be a parent under Section 7611 may file a petition pursuant to Section 7630 to set aside a voluntary declaration of paternity. The court’s ruling on the petition to set aside the voluntary declaration of paternity shall be made taking into account the validity of the voluntary declaration of paternity, the best interests of the child based upon the court’s consideration of the factors set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 7575, and the best interests of the child based upon the nature, duration, and quality of the petitioning party’s relationship with the child and the benefit or detriment to the child of continuing that relationship. In the event of a conflict between the presumption under Section 7611 and the voluntary declaration of paternity, the weightier considerations of policy and logic shall control.
  • (f) A voluntary declaration of paternity is invalid if, at the time the declaration was signed, any of the following conditions exist:
    • (1) The child already had a presumed parent under Section 7540.
    • (2) The child already had a presumed parent under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 7611.
    • (3) The man signing the declaration is a sperm donor, consistent with subdivision (b) of Section 7613.
  • (g) A person’s offer or refusal to sign a voluntary declaration of paternity may be considered as a factor, but shall not be determinative, as to the issue of legal parentage in any proceedings regarding the establishment or termination of parental rights.

 

(Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 86, Sec. 129. (SB 1171) Effective January 1, 2017.)


A Washington state law gave any person the ability to override a good parent’s decision about visitation by simply claiming that it would be “best” for children to allow the third-party to have visitation rights. When the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the law in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000):
Third parties who seek visitation with children should not be required to show that the lack of visitation would affirmatively harm the child. Once further proceedings had unfolded in state court under that adjusted standard, the Court could return to any federal questions that might arise later, such as whether the statute failed to protect the parent’s rights sufficiently.

The burden is on the grandparents to show that mother is acting purely out of spite and in a way that is clearly harmful to the children. If the judge, after reviewing all the evidence, concludes that in this case there has been ‘‘an arbitrary exercise of parental authority that is not in fact motivated by an interest in the welfare of the child,’’ it is constitutionally permissible for the judge to order that the grandparents have some visitation with their grandchildren.

What was the effect of Troxel vs Granville?

  • The court did not find that visitation laws are unconstitutional.
  • Third-party petitioners are still allowed in every state to seek visitation rights.
  • Many states only consider visitation rights by third parties to be a minor burden on parents right to have control of the upbringing of their children.
  • After the Troxel case, many states now place great weight on what a fit parent’s decision is regarding what is best for their child when deciding whether to grant visitation rights, especially grandparent visitation rights.

In 2013, California enacted Family Code §7612(c), a groundbreaking law, which provides that a child may have a parent-child relationship with more than two parents. Prior to the enactment of the new “three parent law,” a biological parent had to terminate his or her rights before a non-biological parent could be legally recognized as a parent. By removing the two parent legal limitation, the new law allows for, among other things, the recognition of non-biological parents in addition to two biological parents.

Family Code §7612(c) permits the recognition of more than two parents in cases where “recognizing only two parents [i.e., biological parents] would be detrimental to the child.” In deciding whether to recognize more than two parents for a child, the Court will consider all relevant factors, including the harm of removing the child from a stable placement with a parent who has fulfilled the child’s physical needs and psychological needs for care and affection, and who has assumed that role for a substantial period of time. (Family Code §7612(c)).

The law was enacted in the wake of the California Court of Appeal’s ruling in the complex and heartbreaking case In re M.C. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 197. In that case, the child was placed into foster care after her biological mother, and the only parent listed on the child’s birth certificate, was incarcerated. The child’s biological father was virtually absent from the child’s life in a different state, and was not a presumed parent under the law because the parents were never married. The child’s court appointed counsel sought to keep the child out of foster care by arguing that the child had an additional parent: the biological mother’s same-sex partner who was married to the biological mother at the time the child was born. Although the Court was sympathetic to the need for a change in the parentage law, it concluded that the legislature would have to move first. As a result, the child was left in foster care. Fortunately, the legislature responded to the Court’s invitation to change the law so that similar tragedies need not be repeated.

This new law has application in several areas of family law, including: 1) the parentage of non-biological parents; 2) situations where existing parents are unable to care for a minor; and 3) other situations where children need the help of a third parent without termination of the rights of the existing parents.

In October 2015, Boyd Law successfully achieved third parent status for a client in one of the first cases in the state to interpret the new “three parent law.” In finding in favor of our client, the Court found that all of the criteria under Family Code §7612(c) were met.

This was truly a case that fit into the legislative intent behind the law, as the failure to recognize our client as a third parent would have been detrimental to the child. However, the facts of each case are unique. The attorneys at Boyd Law have the experience, skill, and forward thinking legal minds to achieve any results for our client, even in cases of first impression. source

 


Download a PDF about Psychological Parentage, Troxel,  and the Best Interests of the Child.

 

Download a good PDF to read about Three Parent Law
The State Bar of California family law news issue4 2017 vol. 39, no. 4.pdf


To Learn More…. Read MORE Below and click the links Below 


Abuse & Neglect The Reporters  (Police, D.A & Medical & the Bad Actors)

Mandated Reporter Laws – Nurses, District Attorney’s, and Police should listen up
If You Would Like to Learn More About:
The California Mandated Reporting LawClick Here

To Read the Penal Code § 11164-11166 – Child Abuse or Neglect Reporting Act – California Penal Code 11164-11166Article 2.5. (CANRAClick Here

 Mandated Reporter formMandated ReporterFORM SS 8572.pdfThe Child Abuse

ALL POLICE CHIEFS, SHERIFFS AND COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENTS  INFO BULLETIN:
Click Here Officers and DA’s
 for (Procedure to Follow)

It Only Takes a Minute to Make a Difference in the Life of a Child learn more below

You can learn more here California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Law  its a PDF file


Learn More About True Threats Here below….

We also have the The Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)1st Amendment

CURRENT TEST = We also have the TheBrandenburg testfor incitement to violence 1st Amendment

We also have the The Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action Test 1st Amendment

We also have the True Threats – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition – 1st Amendment

We also have the Watts v. United StatesTrue Threat Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Clear and Present Danger Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Gravity of the Evil Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Elonis v. United States (2015) – Threats – 1st Amendment


Learn More About What is Obscene…. be careful about education it may enlighten you

We also have the Miller v. California 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment

We also have the Obscenity and Pornography – 1st Amendment


Learn More About Police, The Government Officials and You….

$$ Retaliatory Arrests and Prosecution $$

We also have the Brayshaw v. City of Tallahassee1st Amendment Posting Police Address

We also have the Publius v. Boyer-Vine –1st Amendment Posting Police Address

We also have the Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida (2018) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Nieves v. Bartlett (2019)1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Hartman v. Moore (2006)1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims
Against Government Officials1st Amendment

We also have the Reichle v. Howards (2012) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims
Against Government Officials1st Amendment

Freedom of the Press Flyers, Newspaper, Leaflets, Peaceful Assembly1$t Amendment – Learn More Here

Vermont’s Top Court Weighs: Are KKK Fliers1st Amendment Protected Speech

We also have the Insulting letters to politician’s home are constitutionally protected, unless they are ‘true threats’ – Letters to Politicians Homes – 1st Amendment

We also have the First Amendment Encyclopedia very comprehensive 1st Amendment


ARE PEOPLE LYING ON YOU? CAN YOU PROVE IT? IF YES…. THEN YOU ARE IN LUCK!

Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law

Federal Perjury – Definition by Law

Penal Code 132 PCOffering False Evidence

Penal Code 134 PCPreparing False Evidence

Penal Code 118.1 PCPolice Officer$ Filing False Report$

Spencer v. PetersPolice Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment

Penal Code 148.5 PC –  Making a False Police Report in California

Penal Code 115 PCFiling a False Document in California


Sanctions and Attorney Fee Recovery for Bad Actors

FAM § 3027.1 – Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions For False Child Abuse AllegationsFamily Code 3027.1 – Click Here

FAM § 271 – Awarding Attorney Fees– Family Code 271 Family Court Sanction Click Here

Awarding Discovery Based Sanctions in Family Law Cases – Click Here

FAM § 2030 – Bringing Fairness & Fee RecoveryClick Here

Zamos v. StroudDistrict Attorney Liable for Bad Faith ActionClick Here


Mi$Conduct Pro$ecutorial Mi$Conduct

Prosecutor$

Criminal Motions § 1:9 – Motion for Recusal of Prosecutor

Pen. Code, § 1424 – Recusal of Prosecutor

Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case

 

Mi$Conduct JudiciaMi$Conduct

Judge$

Prosecution Of Judges For Corrupt Practice$

Code of Conduct for United States Judge$

Disqualification of a Judge for Prejudice

Judicial Immunity from Civil and Criminal Liability

Recusal of Judge – CCP § 170.1Removal a Judge – How to Remove a Judge

l292 Disqualification of Judicial OfficerC.C.P. 170.6 Form

How to File a Complaint Against a Judge in California?

Commission on Judicial PerformanceJudge Complaint Online Form

Why Judges, District Attorneys or Attorneys Must Sometimes Recuse Themselves

Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case


Misconduct by Government Know Your Rights Click Here (must read!)

 Under 42 U.S.C. $ection 1983 – Recoverable Damage$

42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Right$

$ection 1983 LawsuitHow to Bring a Civil Rights Claim

18 U.S. Code § 242Deprivation of Right$ Under Color of Law

18 U.S. Code § 241Conspiracy against Right$

$uing for MisconductKnow More of Your Right$

Police Misconduct in CaliforniaHow to Bring a Lawsuit

Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct – Know What it is!

New Supreme Court Ruling – makes it easier to sue police

Possible courses of action Prosecutorial Misconduct

Misconduct by Judges & ProsecutorRules of Professional Conduct

Functions and Duties of the ProsecutorProsecution Conduct

What is Sua Sponte and How is it Used in a California Court? 

Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors
and other Individuals & Fake Evidence
from Your Case 


PARENT CASE LAW 

RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR CHILDREN &
YOUR
CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT$ + RULING$

YOU CANNOT GET BACK TIME BUT YOU CAN HIT THOSE IMMORAL NON CIVIC MINDED PUNKS WHERE THEY WILL FEEL YOU = THEIR BANK

9.3 Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant as (Individuals) —
14th Amendment
this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

Amdt5.4.5.6.2 – Parental and Children’s Rights
5th Amendment
this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

9.32 Interference with Parent / Child Relationship
14th Amendment
this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

California Civil Code Section 52.1
Interference with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights

Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of Rights
SCOTUS RULINGS FOR YOUR PARENT RIGHTS

SEARCH of our site for all articles relating for PARENTS RIGHTS Help!

Child’s Best Interest in Custody Cases

Are You From Out of State (California)?  FL-105 GC-120(A)
Declaration Under Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)


GRANDPARENT CASE LAW 

Do Grandparents Have Visitation Rights? If there is an Established Relationship then Yes

Third “PRESUMED PARENT” Family Code 7612(C) – Requires Established Relationship Required

Cal State Bar PDF to read about Three Parent Law
The State Bar of California family law news issue4 2017 vol. 39, no. 4.pdf

Distinguishing Request for Custody from Request for Visitation

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)Grandparents – 14th Amendment

Child’s Best Interest in Custody Cases

9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship

When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate?Reason for Joinder

Joinder In Family Law CasesCRC Rule 5.24

GrandParents Rights To Visit
Family Law Packet OC Resource Center
Family Law Packet SB Resource Center

Motion to vacate an adverse judgment

Mandatory Joinder vs Permissive Joinder – Compulsory vs Dismissive Joinder

When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate?

Kyle O. v. Donald R. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 848

Punsly v. Ho (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1099

Zauseta v. Zauseta (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1242

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

Ian J. v. Peter M


DUE PROCESS READS>>>>>>

Due Process vs Substantive Due Process learn more HERE

Understanding Due Process  – This clause caused over 200 overturns in just DNA alone Click Here

Mathews v. EldridgeDue Process – 5th & 14th Amendment Mathews Test3 Part TestAmdt5.4.5.4.2 Mathews Test

UnfriendingEvidence – 5th Amendment

At the Intersection of Technology and Law

We also have the Introducing TEXT & EMAIL Digital Evidence in California Courts  1st Amendment
so if you are interested in learning about 
Introducing Digital Evidence in California State Courts
click here for SCOTUS rulings


Retrieving Evidence / Internal Investigation Case 

Conviction Integrity Unit (“CIU”) of the Orange County District Attorney OCDAClick Here

Fighting Discovery Abuse in LitigationForensic & Investigative AccountingClick Here

Orange County Data, BodyCam, Police Report, Incident Reports,
and all other available known requests for data below: 

APPLICATION TO EXAMINE LOCAL ARREST RECORD UNDER CPC 13321 Click Here

Learn About Policy 814: Discovery Requests OCDA Office – Click Here

Request for Proof In-Custody Form Click Here

Request for Clearance Letter Form Click Here

Application to Obtain Copy of State Summary of Criminal HistoryForm Click Here

Request Authorization Form Release of Case InformationClick Here

Texts / Emails AS EVIDENCE Authenticating Texts for California Courts

Can I Use Text Messages in My California Divorce?

Two-Steps And Voila: How To Authenticate Text Messages

How Your Texts Can Be Used As Evidence?

California Supreme Court Rules: Text Messages Sent on Private Government Employees Lines Subject to Open Records Requests

case law: City of San Jose v. Superior CourtReleasing Private Text/Phone Records of Government  Employees

Public Records Practices After the San Jose Decision

The Decision Briefing Merits After the San Jose Decision

CPRA Public Records Act Data Request – Click Here

Here is the Public Records Service Act Portal for all of CALIFORNIA Click Here


Appealing/Contesting Case/Order/Judgment/Charge/ Suppressing Evidence

First Things First: What Can Be Appealed and What it Takes to Get StartedClick Here

Options to Appealing– Fighting A Judgment Without Filing An Appeal Settlement Or Mediation 

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 Motion to Reconsider

Penal Code 1385Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise

Penal Code 1538.5Motion To Suppress Evidence in a California Criminal Case

CACI No. 1501 – Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings

Penal Code “995 Motions” in California –  Motion to Dismiss

WIC § 700.1If Court Grants Motion to Suppress as Evidence

Suppression Of Exculpatory Evidence / Presentation Of False Or Misleading Evidence – Click Here

Notice of Appeal Felony (Defendant) (CR-120)  1237, 1237.5, 1538.5(m) – Click Here


Cleaning Up Your Record

Penal Code 851.8 PCCertificate of Factual Innocence in California

SB 393: The Consumer Arrest Record Equity Act851.87 – 851.92  & 1000.4 – 11105CARE ACT

Expungement California – How to Clear Criminal Records Under Penal Code 1203.4 PC

Cleaning Up Your Criminal Record in California (focus OC County)

Governor Pardons Click Here for the Details

How to Get a Sentence Commuted (Executive Clemency) in California

How to Reduce a Felony to a MisdemeanorPenal Code 17b PC Motion

Vacate a Criminal Conviction in CaliforniaPenal Code 1473.7 PC


 Epic Criminal / Civil Right$ SCOTUS Help Click Here

At issue in Rosenfeld v. New Jersey (1972) was whether a conviction under state law prohibiting profane language in a public place violated a man's First Amendment's protection of free speech. The Supreme Court vacated the man's conviction and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its recent rulings about fighting words. The man had used profane language at a public school board meeting. (Illustration via Pixabay, public domain) Epic Parents SCOTUS Ruling Parental Right$ Help Click Here

Judge’s & Prosecutor’s Jurisdiction– SCOTUS RULINGS on

Prosecutional Misconduct – SCOTUS Rulings re: Prosecutors

 


 

Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards

Download Here this Recommended Citation


Please take time to learn new UPCOMING 

The PROPOSED Parental Rights Amendment
to the US CONSTITUTION Click Here to visit their site

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment will specifically add parental rights in the text of the U.S. Constitution, protecting these rights for both current and future generations.

The Parental Rights Amendment is currently in the U.S. Senate, and is being introduced in the U.S. House.