California Court of Appeal Feb 18, 2022 No. E075498Unpublished
Filed 2/18/22 C.H. v. R.H. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
C.H. et al.,
Appellants, E075498
v. (Super. Ct. No. FAMVS1901048)
R.H., OPINION
Respondent;
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES,
Respondent.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Carlos M. Cabrera,
Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Valerie Ross and Valerie Ross, for Appellants.
R.H., in pro. per., for Respondent.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Cheryl L. Feiner, Assistant Attorney General,
Gregory D. Brown, Jennevee H. DeGuzman and Darin L. Wessel, Deputy Attorneys
General, for Respondent County of San Bernardino.
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
Ro.H (Mother) and A.I. (Father) are A.R.’s (Minor) biological parents. Mother
left Minor in Ri.H.’s care after her birth. Ri.H. and C.H. have raised Minor together ever
since. They obtained a default parentage judgment declaring them Minor’s parents, but
the trial court later vacated the judgment. Ri.H. and C.H. appeal the trial court’s order
vacating the judgment. We affirm.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother gave birth to A.R. in April 2010. Father was incarcerated at the time and
has remained incarcerated since her birth.
Shortly after Minor was born, Mother left her with Ri.H. for her care. Ri.H. began
dating C.H. a few months later. About a year later, Ri.H. was appointed Minor’s
guardian. Ri.H. and C.H. have since gotten married and have raised A.R. together for
almost all of her life. The San Bernardino County Department of Child Support Services 1 (the Department) also has been involved with Minor’s care because she receives public
assistance. Among other things, the Department obtained judgments against Mother and
Father ordering them to pay child support for Minor.
1 The Department filed a respondent’s brief as attorneys for the public interest under Family Code section 17407.
2
In 2019, Ri.H. and C.H. filed a petition, with Mother as the respondent, to
establish their parentage to Minor under the Uniform Parentage Act (Fam. Code, §§ 7600
et seq.). The petition identified Mother as Minor’s only known biological parent while
noting that the Department was conducting genetic testing on A.I. to determine whether
he was Minor’s biological father. Ri.H. and C.H. served Mother with the petition, but did
not serve Father or the Department.
The trial court granted the petition and entered a judgment declaring Ri.H. and
C.H. as Minor’s parents. The judgment, which does not mention Father, states that the
proceedings were “[d]efault or uncontested.” It also orders that Minor’s birth certificate
be amended by removing Mother’s name and adding Ri.H. and C.H.’s as Minor’s
parents.
The Department moved to set aside the judgment, arguing that it was void for lack
of personal jurisdiction over Father and the Department because Ri.H. and C.H. did not
serve them with the petition. The Department also argued the judgment should be set
aside because Ri.H. and C.H. did not follow the appropriate procedures to adopt Minor.
The trial court granted the Department’s motion and vacated the judgment. Ri.H. and
C.H. timely appealed.
III.
DISCUSSION
Ri.H. and C.H. argue the trial court erroneously vacated the judgment. We
disagree.
3
“The Family Code requires that all parents . . . be notified of a parentage action in
accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure,” which “requires notice
of an action to be effectuated by delivering a ‘copy of the summons and of the complaint
to the person to be served.’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.10.).” (Alex R. v. Superior Court
(2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 1, 10; Fam. Code, § 7666 [natural father must be served with
notice of proceeding in which his parental rights may be terminated].) If a party is not
properly served, then the trial court lacks personal jurisdiction over that party. (Ellard v.
Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544.)
Ri.H. and C.H. did not serve Father with a copy of their petition as required under
Family Code section 7666 and Code of Civil Procedure section 415.10. Without citing
any authority, they suggest doing so was unnecessary because Father was not a party “in
the parentage action.”
But because Father was never served with the petition, the trial court lacked
personal jurisdiction over him. (See Strathvale Holdings v. E.B.H. (2005) 126
Cal.App.4th 1241, 1250.) And because the judgment had the effect of terminating
Father’s parental rights to Minor, the trial court could not enter it without jurisdiction
over him. For that reason alone, we conclude the trial court properly vacated the
judgment as void for lack of jurisdiction, so we need not address the parties’ remaining
arguments. (See ibid.; see also Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th
1426, 1444 [“[A] default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with
a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void.”].)
4
IV.
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order vacating the judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
SLOUGH J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The trial court properly vacated a default parentage judgment because the petitioners failed to serve the minor's biological father, rendering the judgment void for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in vacating a default parentage judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction over the minor's biological father.
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“If a party is not properly served, then the trial court lacks personal jurisdiction over that party.”
“Ri.H. and C.H. did not serve Father with a copy of their petition as required under Family Code section 7666 and Code of Civil Procedure section 415.10.”
“the trial court properly vacated the judgment as void for lack of jurisdiction”