Also known as: de facto parents · de facto parenthood
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An individual who has resided with a child as a regular member of the household for a significant period, engaged in consistent caretaking, undertaken full and permanent parental responsibilities without expectation of financial compensation, held the child out as the individual's own, established a bonded and dependent parental relationship fostered by another parent, and whose continued relationship serves the child's best interests.
Dorothy Daniels lived with her partner's daughter for six years, handling daily routines and school matters while the legal mother worked. After the mother's death, Dorothy sought recognition to inherit from the child's estate. The court applied the parent-child relationship rule to treat Dorothy as the child's de facto parent for succession purposes.
Diana Delgado filed a verified petition asserting she had raised her former partner's son since birth and held him out as her child. The legal mother moved to dismiss. The court denied the motion because Diana was alive and claimed de facto parent status, satisfying the threshold to commence the proceeding.
Deborah Dunn cared for her partner's child for four years after separation, providing full support and forming a parental bond the legal mother had encouraged. When the biological father later asserted rights, the court weighed the functional relationship against other claims and adjudicated Deborah a legal parent based on the established criteria.
Elisa B. and Emily B. entered into a lesbian relationship in 1993 and began living together six months later. They introduced each other to friends as their partner, exchanged rings, opened a joint bank account, and believed they were in a committed relationship. They discussed having children and decided that they both wished to give birth, with Emily as the stay-at-home mother and Elisa as the primary breadwinner because Elisa earned more than twice as much money as Emily. They chose a donor at a sperm bank so the children would be biological brothers and sisters. Elisa became pregnant in February 1997 and gave birth to Chance in November 1997. Emily began the insemination process in June of 1997 and became pregnant in August 1997, giving birth prematurely in March 1998 to twins Ry and Kaia. Ry had medical problems including Down’s syndrome and required heart surgery. Elisa was present when Emily was inseminated and picked up additional sperm to inseminate Emily at their home. They jointly selected the children’s names, joining their surnames with a hyphen. They each breast-fed all of the children. Elisa claimed all three children as her dependents on her tax returns and obtained a life insurance policy on herself naming Emily as the beneficiary. Elisa’s parents referred to the twins as their grandchildren, and her sister referred to Elisa as the twins’ mother. Elisa treated all of the children as hers and told a prospective employer that she had triplets. Elisa and Emily identified themselves as coparents of Ry at an organization arranging care for his Down’s syndrome. Elisa and Emily separated in November 1999. Elisa promised to support Emily and the twins as much as she possibly could and initially paid the mortgage payments of approximately $1,500 per month on the house in which Emily and the twins continued to live, as well as other expenses. When they sold the house and Emily and the twins moved into an apartment in November 2000, Elisa paid Emily $1,000 a month. In early 2001, Elisa stated she lost her position as a full-time employee and told Emily she no longer could support her and the twins. At the time of trial, Elisa was earning $95,000 a year. Emily applied for aid. On June 7, 2001, the El Dorado County District Attorney filed a complaint in superior court to establish that Elisa B. is a parent of two-year-old twins Kaia B. and Ry B., who were born to Emily B., and to order Elisa to pay child support. After a hearing, the superior court rendered a written decision on July 11, 2002, ordering Elisa to pay child support in the amount of $907.50 per child for a total of $1815 per month. Elisa petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate, and the court directed the superior court to vacate its order and dismiss the action. The Supreme Court granted review.
View caseAn individual who is alive when the proceeding begins and who claims to be a de facto parent of the child may commence the action. The statute separates this threshold inquiry from the later merits determination of whether the claimant satisfies the seven substantive elements.
Supporting sources
The claimant must show by clear and convincing evidence that the individual resided with the child for a significant period, provided consistent caretaking, assumed full parental duties without compensation, held the child out as their own, formed a bonded parental relationship fostered by another parent, and that continuing the relationship serves the child's best interests.
Supporting sources
When more than one individual asserts parentage, the court adjudicates the claims under a best-interests framework that weighs factors such as the duration and quality of each relationship and the harm from non-recognition rather than applying automatic priority rules.
Supporting sources
A nonresident may be subject to personal jurisdiction in a parentage or support action if the individual previously resided with the child in the forum state for a sustained period while functioning in a parental role.
Supporting sources
…1599.) The couple’s relationship dissolved when the child was two years old, and the plaintiff filed a “ ‘complaint to establish de facto parent status/maternity and for custody and visitation.’ ” ( Ibid. ) The Court of Appeal summarily dismissed the plaintiff’s reliance upon the UPA, stating “it has no application where, as here,…