Girardin v. Hall

California Court of Appeal Jan 15, 1958 No. Civ. 22449Published

Before: Richards

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a finding of paternity is supported by a preponderance of the evidence even if there is evidence of the mother's sexual relations with another man during the period of conception. Furthermore, trial court findings based on conflicting evidence are conclusive on appeal, and oral judicial reasoning cannot be used to impeach a final judgment.

Issues

Whether the trial court's finding of paternity is supported by the evidence despite conflicting testimony regarding sexual relations.
Whether proof of a mother's sexual intercourse with another man during the period of conception necessitates a judgment for the defendant as a matter of law.
Whether a trial judge's oral remarks during a motion for a new trial can be used to impeach the final judgment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Proof of connection with another man does not necessitate a finding for defendant and is merely a circumstance to be considered in determining the child’s parentage.”

“It is judicial action and not judicial reasoning or argument which is the subject of review”

“oral opinions or statements of the court may not be considered to reverse or impeach the final decision of the court”

RICHARDS, J. pro tem.

Plaintiff brought this action to compel the defendant to support her illegitimate minor child. The court, sitting without a jury, found that the defendant is the father of the child and rendered judgment requiring him to pay to the plaintiff $11.50 a week for the support of the child, together with medical bills and attorney’s fees. The defendant has appealed from the judgment on the ground that the findings are unsupported by the evidence.

Both parties testified that they indulged in frequent acts of sexual intercourse commencing in March 1954. The plaintiff testified that such acts continued until March 1955 except during the last week of December 1954. The defendant testified that they ceased on December 7, 1954, although he admitted having had ‘‘ dates ’ ’ with the plaintiff thereafter during the month of December 1954 and during January, February and March 1955. The defendant’s testimony that he

[711]

had illicit relations with the plaintiff prior to December 7, 1954, tends to corroborate her evidence and to show the probability of his having had sexual intercourse with her in January 1955.

(Berry

Chaplin,

74 Cal.App.2d 652, 661-662 [169 P.2d 442].) The child was born October 11, 1955, and was found by the court to have been conceived on or about January 5, 1955. As admitted in defendant’s brief, there is a clear and substantial conflict in the evidence relating to the question of his intercourse with her during the probable period of conception and therefore under well-established rules the resolution of this conflict was the duty of the trial court and its findings that plaintiff and defendant cohabited from March 1954 to and including March 7, 1955, and that the defendant is the father of the child are conclusive on this appeal.

(Mathews

Hornbeck,

80 Cal.App. 704, 706 [252 P. 667];

Sweet

Girardin v. Hall

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief