In re L.C. CA6

Filed 4/8/13 In re L.C. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re L.C., a Person Coming Under the H038493 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. JD19419) SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN‟S SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

In this dependency matter, the minor, L.C., was adjudged a dependent child of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b)) and her mother‟s boyfriend, J.M., whom L.C. knew as “daddy,” was found to be her presumptive father (Fam. Code, § 7611, subd. (d)).1 The juvenile court later vacated its finding of presumed fatherhood, concluding that a 2009 paternity judgment in favor of R.C. conclusively rebutted the presumption that J.M. was the father. J.M. appeals. L.C. joins his argument on appeal. We shall affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case involves two dependency petitions, one filed in 2009 and the instant petition filed in 2012.

1 Further undesignated section references are to the Family Code.

L.C. lived with mother, J.M., and her half sibling, A.M. (J.M.‟s biological child), from 2008, when L.C. was six months old, to 2010, when J.M. and mother broke up. Sometime in 2008, J.M. went to jail and mother struggled with caring for L.C. by herself. She put L.C. in the care of R.C., L.C.‟s biological father. It was during the time that R.C. supposedly had custody of L.C. that the 2009 dependency was filed. The report filed for the initial hearing in the 2009 case states, “Paternity is not established. [R.C.] reports that he did not sign the declaration of paternity after the child was born. Both parents are requesting a paternity test.” During proceedings on March 9, 2009, mother‟s counsel stated that “[mother] is not opposed to presumed father status for [R.C.].” Father‟s counsel replied, “Your Honor, my client has been seeking presumed father status since the initial hearing and so we‟re happy to hear mother is not contesting that anymore.” Counsel for L.C. and counsel for the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children‟s Services (Department) each stated they had “no objection” to R.C. having status as a “presumed father.” The juvenile court signed and filed a “Parentage- Findings and Judgment” declaring R.C. to be the “legal parent” of L.C. R.C. was offered reunification services but did not participate. Mother ultimately reunited with L.C. and was awarded legal and physical custody. Visitation with R.C. was to be arranged by the parents. In February 2010, in proceedings in family court, the Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Services obtained a “Judgment Regarding Parental Obligations” ordering R.C. to pay mother “$0.00/ZERO” per month child support and to make efforts to find work. The family court “found paternity had been established by the Juvenile Court.” When the instant case commenced in February 2012, R.C.‟s whereabouts were unknown. In a report filed for the initial hearing the reporter notes, “It is believed that in 2009, the Court found [R.C.] a presumed father for the child, as paternity testing revealed he was the biological father.” R.C. was identified at the outset of the instant matter to be