E.B. v. V.L. CA6

Filed 1/27/25 E.B. v. V.L. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

E.B., H051904 (Monterey County Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 23PT000213)

v.

V.L.,

Respondent;

MONTEREY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES,

Intervener and Respondent.

E.B. appeals from a judgment declaring him and V.L. the parents of M. and O. (two minors) and, among other terms, requiring him to pay child support to the Monterey County Department of Child Support Services (the Department). Identifying no error, we will affirm. I. BACKGROUND

In July 2023, E.B. apparently filed a petition to determine parental relationship using Judicial Council form FL-200, naming V.L. as the respondent.1 The Department

1 The limited record E.B. designated on appeal does not include the petition. But, in its statement of decision, the trial court quoted text from the petition indicating that E.B. used the Judicial Council form alerting him to the possibility that “ ‘[t]he court may make orders for support of the children and issue an earnings assignment without further

intervened because V.L. had assigned it her support rights to secure public assistance for the children. That December the Department moved for a judgment (1) establishing that E.B. is the parent of M. and O.; (2) requiring E.B. to pay $671 per month in child support, commencing July 26, 2023; and (3) requiring E.B. and V.L. to equally share childcare costs and uncovered medical, dental, and/or optical costs for the children. The Department submitted a declaration of paternity for one of the children and a voluntary declaration of parentage for the other, both of which identified E.B. as the father.2 In a document he captioned as an affidavit of special appearance not general appearance, E.B. announced that he would appear for the hearing on the Department’s motion “under THREAT, DURESS, and COERCION.” He included a lengthy objection to the proceeding. His main contentions appear to have been that (1) the superior court was without power to order child support, either because it lacked jurisdiction to do so or because ordering child support is necessarily a deprivation of due process and a violation of equal protection; and (2) he contested the Department’s proof of parentage, and in any event contended that a paternity test (to which he would not submit), or perhaps some other “competent or expert witness testimony,” was required. The trial court heard the motion with E.B., V.L., and the Department present. On appeal, E.B. elected to proceed without a record of the oral proceedings. In his appellate brief, E.B. indicates that the trial court attempted to elicit testimony from him during the hearing, but E.B. objected and refused to answer unspecified questions he believed were irrelevant.