Walsh v. Palma

California Court of Appeal Apr 9, 1984 No. Civ. 28452Published

Before: Brown (Gerald)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a plaintiff in a paternity proceeding must prove the defendant's paternity by a preponderance of the evidence, and that instructing the jury to apply a 'clear and convincing' standard constitutes reversible error.

Issues

Whether a plaintiff in a paternity action must prove paternity by a preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence.
Whether the trial court's erroneous instruction regarding the burden of proof was prejudicial and whether the plaintiff waived the right to challenge it on appeal.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In a suit to establish paternity, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the defendant is the father of the child”

“California law is clear a plaintiff in a disputed paternity proceeding need only prove by a preponderance of the evidence the defendant is the child’s father”

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J .

Plaintiff Laura Walsh appeals a judgment after jury trial favoring defendant Steven Palma on her complaint to establish paternity of her minor child Neil. Steven cross-appeals an order denying his claim for costs against the County of San Diego.

While separated from her husband John, Laura began dating Steven in early 1978. In July 1978 Laura became pregnant after indulging many times with Steven and to some extent with at least one other man in “that bond by which nature in its ingenious telepathy has contrived to secure and render agreeable the perpetuation of the species.”

In March 1979 Laura’s divorce from John became final. On April 16, 1979, Neil was bom.

In January 1980 the San Diego County District Attorney on Laura’s behalf sued Steven to establish Neil’s paternity. Answering Laura’s complaint, Steven denied he was Neil’s father.

At trial the parties presented conflicting evidence about the dates they had sexual relations, their use of contraceptives, their statements during Laura’s pregnancy about the baby’s paternity and the statistical probability Steven was Neil’s father suggested by blood test results. After trial the jury found Steven was not Neil’s father. Laura appeals, claiming instructional error.

Laura asked the court to tell the jury she had the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence all facts necessary to prove Steven was Neil’s father (BAJI No. 2.60). Steven asked the court to tell the jury: “In this case the evidence shows that plaintiff Laura Walsh was married to John Walsh until March 3, 1979. A man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if he and the child’s natural mother are or have been married to each other, and the child is born during the marriage or within three hundred days after the marriage is terminated by divorce. It is plaintiff’s burden to rebut this presumption, and it may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence.” (Civ. Code, §§ 7004, subd. (a)(1) and subd. (b).)

The court did not give either requested instruction. Instead, after chambers conferences with counsel, the court told the jury: “The instruction that I am about to give you, ladies and gentlemen, has to do with the delineation

[293]

Walsh v. Palma

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief