My point: it is impossible a man to be ordered to pay child support after his break-up with the mother only because he was the bread winner and the mother and children depended on him.
There are another conditions if Paternity by estoppel has to be app;ied according to 7611,d.
1 The man has ever known that he is not biologicaly related to the child.
2.The man accepted the child into his family
3.The man treated the child as his own child
For the child considered the man his/her father
5.The child was presented to the society as the man's natural child.
Actually in Re-marriage of Pedregon Shawn Pedregon acknowledged he asked the child to be present and introduced to the society as his child /he requested the child use his last name and etc/.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gemhorse4

I have been living with a man for 4 years. He has basically took over the father figure roll only in paying for bills and expenses for living. He has bought the food, and bought the children clothes for school.

---

That is the OP question

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gemhorse4

They said that the man, even though was not the biological father and is not an adoptive father, had to pay support to help out because he had taken on the roll of father, and we have depended on him.

---

My answer is NO-even in California

Parentage by estoppel is established by a finding of the following four elements, none of which are dependent upon nor related to a presumption of paternity:


1. The [Alleged father] represented to the [child] that he was his father intending his representation be accepted and acted upon by the child;
2. the child relied upon the representation and treated the [alleged father] as his father;
3. that the child was ignorant of the true facts;
4. the representation must be of such long continuance that it frustrates the realistic opportunity of discovering the natural father.

Pedregon, citing Clevenger v. Clevenger (1961) 189 Cal. App. 2d at page 671.

Imagine an unmarried woman with a child whose boyfriend, living elsewhere, acts toward the child in such a way as to satisfy the above four elements. Assume no presumption of paternity under 7611 applies; nonetheless, parentage by estoppel, and with it a support obligation, could be found in such a hypothetical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GV70

My answer is NO-even in California

---

GV, do you really take the OP's description of the particulars her relationship with this man and that of her child as exhaustive? The person assumed the role of father to the child as far as this lady is concerned. That's all she's saying. It would take a trial to ferret out the extent of that relationship and test whether the elements of parentage by estoppel were met. It's wrong to summarily dismiss her plea without knowing more. And, as I stated, in California anyway it is incorrect to approach the question with a simple no-presumption-of-paternity=no-parentage-by-estoppel analysis.

In clarifying that child support based on parentage by estoppel was narrowly limited, the Clevenger court explained: “We have been careful, however, to restrict the indicated liability of the putative father to the case in which he represents to the child expressly or by implication that he is the child's natural father and the child believes him to be the natural father. We do not suggest that the husband who supports his wife's child by another man necessarily incurs liability for the support of that child."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GV70

In clarifying that child support based on parentage by estoppel was narrowly limited, the Clevenger court explained: “We have been careful, however, to restrict the indicated liability of the putative father to the case in which he represents to the child expressly or by implication that he is the child’s natural father and the child believes him to be the natural father. We do not suggest that the husband who supports his wife’s child by another man necessarily incurs liability for the support of that child."

---

Nothing I said was inconsistent with that. I agree that financially supporting a child alone is insufficient to satisfy the doctrine. But I think you are digressing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

GV, do you really take the OP's description of the particulars her relationship with this man and that of her child as exhaustive? The person assumed the role of father to the child as far as this lady is concerned. That's all she's saying. It would take a trial to ferret out the extent of that relationship and test whether the elements of parentage by estoppel were met. It's wrong to summarily dismiss her plea without knowing more. And, as I stated, in California anyway it is incorrect to approach the question with a simple no-presumption-of-paternity=no-parentage-by-estoppel analysis.

---

And as I stated Florida does not recognize De facto parent theory.
California is very well-known with its budget shortfall , wrong default orders and maybe it is the main reason Ca Courts to order child support payments to anyone who is able to pay.

How he assumed his "parental" role?? Paying bills and buying food??

For me the case is clear," My ex-in-live partner paid the bills and bought food and clothes. I want to see him responsible for my future bills,too. Notwithstanding we broke up".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GV70

And as I stated Florida does not recognize De facto parent theory.
California is very well-known with its budget shortfall , wrong default orders and maybe it is the main reason Ca Courts to order child support payments to anyone who is able to pay.

How he assumed his "parental" role???Paying bills and buying food???

For me the case is clear," My ex-in-live partner paid the bills and bought food and clothes. I want to see him responsible for my future bills,too. Notwithstanding we broke up".

---

Oh, GV I love your tenacity and I love California too (which "wrong default orders" are you referring to by the way? ), which is why I am eagerly awaiting our Supreme Court's decision on Prop. 8 tomorrow and hoping the Supremes will do the right thing and toss Prop. 8 out on its bigoted ear--but I'm digressing now myself.

I agree that we don't want to apply parentage by estoppel to merely punish the good guy who helps out some poor lady and her dependent kid with a deadbeat dad (what do they say, "No good deed goes unpunished"?). But I think there's more going on with this OP than that and she really needs to say if there is more too it than just, "he paid some of the bills." I have to think there is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

Oh, GV I love your tenacity and I love California too (which "wrong default orders" are you referring to by the way??), which is why I am eagerly awaiting our Supreme Court's decision on Prop. 8 tomorrow and hoping the Supremes will do the right thing and toss Prop. 8 out on its bigoted ear--but I'm digressing now myself.

I agree that we don't want to apply parentage by estoppel to merely punish the good guy who helps out some poor lady and her dependent kid with a deadbeat dad (what do they say, "No good deed goes unpunished"?). But I think there's more going on with this OP than that and she really needs to say if there is more too it than just, "he paid some of the bills." I have to think there is.

---

The famous default paternity orders/79% in LA County in 2002/ and false paternity judgments.:):):)

I can remember a very funny case-of the Kee family.
The husband became the legal father of another man's child by a default paternity judgment issued in Orange County. He was forced by court order to financially support this child .
The biological dad, who did not know that Mr. Kee had been wrongly named as the father, has stepped up to the plate as the dad.
Conclusion:court orders for both men to pay support to the same child.-hahahaha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GV70

The famous default paternity orders/79% in LA County in 2002/ and false paternity judgments.:):):)

---

I'm not sure I would use the phrase "false paternity judgments." They're just default cases where the "dads" involved were too stupid or indifferent to act in a timely fashion to protect their rights. People are like that. They sleep on their rights all the time and then complain that the law is unfair because it doesn't allow them to take care of their business whenever they feel like getting around to it. In spite of all these half-wits out there in our state who can't read or don't have the brains to take a summons to someone who can and have it explained it to them, the legislature enacted subparagraph 3 to Family Code 7646, subdivision (a) that allowed dads to challenge and set aside old default paternity judgments entered at anytime if they could establish non-biological paternity (after all we love our idiots too). Unfortunately the change in the law was only effective for a two-year period that commenced in 2004 and now that's out as an option. Maybe you just have to be a little smarter than average to live in California!:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GV70

I can remember a very funny case-of the Kee family.
The husband became the legal father of another man's child by a default paternity judgment issued in Orange County. He was forced by court order to financially support this child .
The biological dad, who did not know that Mr. Kee had been wrongly named as the father, has stepped up to the plate as the dad.
conclusion:court orders for both men to pay support to the same child.-hahahaha

---

Hey, what's wrong with having three parents? (I actually had a judge ask me that once in court, but I cannot recall the details of why he did-- I think I just said, "it's okay with me Your Honor.")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

I'm not sure I would use the phrase "false paternity judgments." They're just default cases where the "dads" involved were too stupid or indifferent to act in a timely fashion to protect their rights. People are like that. They sleep on their rights all the time and then complain that the law is unfair because it doesn't allow them to take care of their business whenever they feel like getting around to it. In spite of all these half-wits out there in our state who can't read or don't have the brains to take a summons to someone who can and have it explained it to them, the legislature enacted subparagraph 3 to Family Code 7646, subdivision (a) that allowed dads to challenge and set aside old default paternity judgments entered at anytime if they could establish non-biological paternity (after all we love our idiots too). Unfortunately the change in the law was only effective for a two-year period that commenced in 2004 and now that's out as an option. Maybe you just have to be a little smarter than average to live in California!:)

---

I referred to cases such the Kee family. :)