Marriage of Gupta CA4/3

Filed 7/9/14 Marriage of Gupta CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re Marriage of NEELAM and RAJIV GUPTA.

NEELAM S. TATHAGAT, G049222 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 13D004976) v. OPINION RAJIV GUPTA,

Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Glenn R. Salter, Judge. Affirmed. Neelam S. Tathagat, in pro. per., for Appellant. Rajiv Gupta, in pro. per., for Respondent. * * *

Neelam S. Tathagat (wife) filed for dissolution of her marriage to Rajiv Gupta (husband). Wife gave birth to two sons during the marriage. This appeal concerns the trial court’s determination of parentage. Wife claimed husband is not the boys’ father. She requested the court order sperm viability testing. Husband objected to such testing, but consented to DNA testing. The results of the DNA tests indicated husband is the father of both boys. Although wife maintained husband was not the father, when asked who the father is, if it is not husband, she remained silent and refused to answer the court. In a brief filed in this court, wife states she never had a sexual relationship outside the marriage. We find the court did not err in finding husband is the father of the boys. I FACTS According to wife’s petition for dissolution of marriage, she and husband were married in India in December 1996, and again in Pittsburgh in February 1997. They did not separate until October 7, 2011. In the interim, wife gave birth to a son in 1998 and another in 1999. When she filed the petition for dissolution, she also filed a declaration stating husband is not the father of the boys. Wife requested the court order a sperm viability test and DNA testing. Husband objected to sperm viability testing, pointing out he conceived the boys 13 and 15 years earlier. He agreed to undergo DNA testing. The court ordered DNA testing. At the hearing on the issue of paternity, wife continued to insist husband is not the father, but refused to answer the court’s inquiry as to who the father is if not husband, and offered no evidence on the issue. Upon reviewing the test results, the court found husband to be the father of the boys. According to the record on appeal, the DNA test indicated the odds that the boys’ father is someone other than husband are 623 million to one. The court stated the DNA results established husband’s paternity at 99.99 percent. Wife appealed.