Adoption of E.B.
California Court of Appeal
76 Cal. App. 5th 359 (2022)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
J.O., M.B., and Third-Parent (T.P.) (plaintiff) (collectively, the three parents) were in a committed polyamorous relationship and cohabitated. The three parents agreed to raise a child together, and that the child would be conceived by J.O. and M.B. After the child, E.B., was born, the three parents raised E.B. collectively, and T.P. took an active, equal role in all parenting responsibilities. T.P. filed an uncontested petition to adopt E.B. as a third parent. California’s State Department of Social Services (CDSS) conducted the required pre-adoption investigation and recommended that allowing T.P. to adopt E.B. would be in E.B’s best interest. The trial court rejected CDSS’s recommendation and denied T.P.’s petition, holding that T.P. failed to satisfy the requirements of the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA). Specifically, the trial court held that T.P. had not yet fulfilled E.B.’s parenting needs for a suitably substantial period of time and that there was no real risk J.O. and M.B. would prevent T.P. from seeing E.B. Therefore, the trial court concluded that it would not be detrimental to E.B. to be restricted to only two legal parents, namely J.O. and M.B. E.B. appealed, arguing that (1) the trial court had erred by applying UPA instead of California’s adoption laws, and (2) T.P.’s petition would have been granted had the trial court applied the correct law.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Raye, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.