Santa Clara County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Mitchell CA6

Filed 7/18/24 Santa Clara County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Mitchell CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

SANTA CLARA COUNTY H051402 DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT (Santa Clara County SERVICES, Super. Ct. No. 23CS000080)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

STEPHAN DAMON MITCHELL,

Defendant and Appellant;

JENNY M. GOCHEZ FLORES,

Respondent.

Representing himself, defendant Stephan Damon Mitchell1 appeals from a judgment confirming parentage and establishing child support in an action initiated by plaintiff and respondent Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Services (the Department). Mitchell contends that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him, and that parentage was not established by admissible evidence. We affirm.

Mitchell calls himself “a lawful freeman known to use the name 1

Stephan-Damon: Mitchell,” and purports to be “a stateless non-legal entity.” We will refer to him as “Mitchell” for brevity.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In January 2023, the Department filed a summons and complaint against Mitchell to establish child support for minor child, D.M., born in 2022. The complaint identified D.M.’s parents as Mitchell and respondent Jenny M. Gochez Flores2 based on a voluntary declaration of parentage (VDOP) signed by both parents and filed with the Department of Child Support Services. In March 2023, Mitchell filed an answer to the complaint. Attached to his answer were notarized documents entitled: (1) “Affidavit of General Denial,” (2) “Affidavit of Specific Negative Averment,” (3) “Affidavit of Status,” (4) “Affidavit of Denial of Paternity and Parentage,” and (5) “Written Objection.” In such documents, Mitchell claimed he was a “free man,” “homo liber,” and “stateless non-legal entity,” and identified a mailing address located in “Virginia Beach, Virginia Republic [zip code exempt] [¶] On the land commonly called America.” Mitchell challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction on the basis that, as a “homo liber,” he was not “amenable to process issued by the courts of this State. . . .” Mitchell claimed he was “not a party to any valid contract or compact” with Flores or the Department requiring him to pay child support or to submit to DNA testing. Mitchell denied being D.M.’s biological and legal father and denied any parent-child relationship. Thereafter, the Department filed a motion to seek entry of the proposed judgment on parentage and child support. The Department claimed Mitchell signed a VDOP for D.M., which was on file with the State of California, and that the VDOP had the same force and effect as a parentage judgment.