Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California
In the judicial opinion for the California case Cheyanna M. v. A.C. Nielsen Co. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 855 , 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 335 - there is a deescription of California current intestacy law as it applies to children born around the time of their father's death..
My question, which I'll explain more about in a moment, concerns its so called "impossibility provision".
In Cheyanna M, an infant child whose father, David, had been hit by a truck and killed shortly before Cheyanna's birth. sued the employer of the truck driver for damages - Her mother and David had been dating, but were not married, The fact that she was David's child was undisputed.
Her suit was brought under the wrongful death statute.
The lower court decision though, was that Cheyanna was not David's child and so they ruled that she did not have the standing to sue as David's child. This was reversed on appeal, but not because it didn't make sense or was unconstitutional. Basically, Cheyanna won on a technicality. the CA legislature's "impossibility provision".
David died before Cheyanna M was born, so it was so very "impossible" for her to jump through the hoops the situation was so very obviously unfair to ask her to.
So, the effect of the decision in this case, was that Cheyanna M was allowed to show only that everybody agreed beyond a doubt that David WAS her father.
The legislative history discusses the impossibility provision as having been put there to prevent a constitutional challenge.
"the time needed to get a court order" is there described. Does the law really mean thats all the time that a parent can survive a child, (presumably involved in frantic legal proceedings to "legitimize" same, impossibly anticipating their upcoming death?) Or is the court more realistic?
Additionally, the physical condition of the people involved is invoked as a possible modifier.. If say, a "David" or a "Cheyanna" was in the hospital, immobile, perhaps the effect would have been the same. Nobody is doing any "holding out" in that condition. But, are they expected to do so regardless?
What factors matter, and who decides?
I hope this question is interesting to you. I think questions like this are important.
*Thank you*
2 Answers from Attorneys
Your question is of course interesting and important. Perhaps your remarks are best directed to the California Law Revision Commission or your state legislators.
I think you misread the case. That case stands for the proposition that standing in a wrongful death action is determined by California's intestacy laws.
The court was clear that holding out the child as his own was impossible for the decedent, because the decedent died before the child was born. But the court also explained that the other alternative was open, to prove paternity by clear and convincing evidence. This is not difficult to do in today's society, as genetic testing is universally accepted by the courts. In fact in the opinion, the judge clearly ordered the police to produce a sample of the decedent's blood.
The presumed father does not have to survive the birth of the child for this to happen. There just has to be genetic material belonging to the deceased father to test.
The only hidden issue in the case of interest was the deceased parent's material greed. It was clear from the fact that the court disqualified the mother as guardian ad litem of the child, because she had signed an agreement to give the decedent's parents 50 percent of any recovery. When that went out the window, the parents of the decedent (grandparents) then moved for summary judgment attacking the standing of the grandchild.
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
