ÆÇ°á±âº»Á¤º¸
»ç°Ç¹øÈ£ 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 1
»ç°Ç¸í S.Y. v. S.B.
ºÐ¾ß Pacific ¼±°íÀÏÀÚ 2011-12-09
¼Ò¼Û´ë¸®ÀÎ Elizabeth N. Niemi£¬et al., Deborah H. Wald£¬et al., Shannon P. Minter£¬et al.
´ã´çÆÇ»ç BLEASE, NICHOLSON, HOCH
ÆÇ°á»ó¼¼³»¿ë
  • S.Y. v. S.B.


¡¼´ç»çÀÚ¡½

S.Y., Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
S.B., Defendant and Appellant.



¡¼´ë¸®ÀΡ½

Law Office of Elizabeth N. Niemi and Elizabeth N. Niemi; Bartholomew & Wasznicky, Diane E. Wasznicky, Sacramento; C. Athena Roussos, Sacramento; Jay–Allen Eisen Law Corporation, Jay–Allen Eisen and Elizabeth N. Niemi, Sacramento, for Defendant and Appellant.


Wald & Thorndal, and Deborah H. Wald; Wald Law Group, Deborah H. Wald, San Francisco, and Paul W. Thorndal, for Plaintiff and Respondent.



Shannon P. Minter, San Francisco, Melanie S. Rowen, Catherine Sakimura, Ilona M. Turner for National Center for Lesbian Rights on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.




¡¼Àü¹®¡½

BLEASE, Acting P.J.
S.B., the adoptive mother of G.B. and M.B., appeals from a judgment declaring that her former same-sex partner S.Y.FN1 is a presumed parent of the children under Family Code section 7611, subdivision (d) (hereafter 7611(d)).FN2 S.B. contends the trial court erred in finding S.Y. is a presumed parent because she never ¡°actually received the children into her own home¡± or ¡°openly held the children out as her own natural children,¡± as required under section 7611(d). She also asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding this was not an appropriate action in which to rebut the parentage presumption (¡× 7612, subd. (a)), and that recognizing S.Y. as a parent violated S.B.'s right to substantive due process by interfering with her interest in the care, custody, and management of her children.



º» ¼­ºñ½º´Â À¯·á ¼­ºñ½º¸¦ ½ÅûÇÑ È¸¿ø¿¡°Ô¸¸ Á¦°ø
ȸ¿ø°¡ÀÔÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀ¸½Å ȸ¿øºÐÀº ȸ¿ø °¡ÀÔ ÈÄ ÀÌ¿ëÇØÁֽñ⠹ٶø´Ï´Ù.
·Î±×ÀÎÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀ¸½Å ȸ¿øºÐÀº ·Î±×ÀÎ ÈÄ ÀÌ¿ëÇØ Áֽñ⠹ٶø´Ï´Ù.
À¯·á ¼­ºñ½º¸¦ ½ÅûÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀ¸½Å ȸ¿øºÐÀº À¯·á ¼­ºñ½º °áÁ¦¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇØÁֽñ⠹ٶø´Ï´Ù.
ȸ¿ø°¡ÀÔ ·Î±×ÀÎ À¯·á¼­ºñ½º °áÁ¦ µÚ·Î°¡±â