California Court of Appeal Mar 23, 2015 No. D065559Unpublished
Filed 3/23/15 Taylor v. Mr. T. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ALEXANDER E. TAYLOR, D065559
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v. (Super. Ct. No. D545233)
MR. T.,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Cindy D.
Davis, Judge. Affirmed.
Alexander E. Taylor, in pro. per, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Phillips Lerner, Marc Oren Lerner and Autumn Miley-Boland for Defendant and
Respondent.
In 2009, a judgment, which is now final, was entered and, by its terms, it
determined that defendant and respondent Mr. T. is not the father of plaintiff and
appellant Alexander E. Taylor. That judgment bars Taylor's current petition to establish a
parent-child relationship between Mr. T. and Taylor. Accordingly, we affirm the trial
court's order dismissing Taylor's petition and quashing his request for further testing.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Taylor was born on May 25, 1988 in Chicago, Illinois. Taylor's mother, Vanessa
Although Taylor was a minor at the time the judgment in D472096 was entered,
his minority did not deprive that judgment of its res judicata or collateral estoppel effect.
In this regard, we note that Family Code section 76351 required that he be made a party
1 Family Code section 7635 states: "(a) The child may, if under the age of 12 years, and shall, if 12 years of age or older, be made a party to the action. If the child is a minor and a party to the action, the child shall be represented by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court. The guardian ad litem need not be represented by counsel if the guardian ad litem is a relative of the child. "(b) The natural parent, each person presumed to be a parent under Section 7611, and each man alleged to be the natural father, may be made parties and shall be given notice of the action in the manner prescribed in Section 7666 and an opportunity to be heard. Appointment of a guardian ad litem shall not be required for a minor who is a parent of the child who is the subject of the petition to establish parental relationship, unless the minor parent is unable to understand the nature of the proceedings or to assist counsel in preparing the case. "(c) The court may align the parties. 4
to the action in D472096 and that a guardian ad litem be appointed to act on his behalf in
that action. That portion of the record in D472096, which is part of the record on appeal
here, indicates that, consistent with Family Code section 7635, Taylor was made a party
to the action and that the trial court intended its resolution of paternity be binding on
Taylor as well as Vanessa. Hence, unless the judgment in D472096 is set aside, it is
binding on Taylor and bars his current claim. (See City and County of San Francisco v.
Cartagena (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1061, 1066.) Taylor has not asserted any grounds for
setting aside the judgment in D472096.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Mr. T. to recover his costs on appeal.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, J.
IRION, J.
"(d) In any initial or subsequent proceeding under this chapter where custody of, or visitation with, a minor child is in issue, the court may, if it determines it would be in the best interest of the minor child, appoint private counsel to represent the interests of the minor child pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 3150) of Part 2 of Division 8." 5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. A final 2009 judgment determining that the respondent is not the appellant's father bars the appellant's subsequent petition to establish a parent-child relationship under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
Issues
Whether a prior final judgment determining paternity is binding on the appellant despite his minority at the time of the judgment.
Whether the appellant's current paternity petition is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel.
Disposition. affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“In 2009, a judgment, which is now final, was entered and, by its terms, it determined that defendant and respondent Mr. T. is not the father of plaintiff and appellant Alexander E. Taylor. That judgment bars Taylor's current petition”
“The judgment in D472096 determined the paternity issue Taylor now raises against him on the merits. It is binding on him here and forecloses the paternity claims he now asserts.”