If you think parentage law in California is settled, think again.
Two recent 2024 Court of Appeal decisions, Feehan v. Superior Court and C.C. v. L.B., highlight just how fluid and, at times, unforgiving California’s parentage laws can be. Both cases involve individuals who helped raise a child but were ultimately sidelined, one granted standing, the other firmly shut out. The contrast is especially stark for same-sex couples and sperm donors who assume the modern family code is finally catching up to lived experience.
Case One: Feehan v. Superior Court – When Intent and Involvement Count
In Feehan, the biological mother, Seto, gave birth while in a registered domestic partnership with Guide, who later adopted the child. Seto then began a romantic relationship with Feehan. From age 2 to 5, the child lived with Feehan and called her “Mom.”
But when the relationship ended, Feehan was cut off entirely. She filed a petition to establish a parental relationship under Family Code §7611(d) and requested temporary visitation.
The trial court denied her request, ruling that it lacked authority to grant visitation to someone who hadn’t yet been legally recognized as a parent. Feehan filed a writ, and won.
The Court of Appeal held that Family Code §§3020, 3022, and 3100 give courts broad discretion to make custody or visitation orders in the best interest of the child, even before a parental relationship has been legally established. The court found that nothing in Family Code §7604 limits that authority. In fact, relying on the legislative history and case law like Gadbois v. Superior Court, the appellate court confirmed that courts aren’t handcuffed from issuing temporary visitation orders just because the parentage petition is still pending.
Bottom line? Feehan gives hope to would-be parents (often in same-sex relationships) who have functioned as de facto parents and are seeking court-ordered visitation, even if the legal status of their parentage is still in flux.
Case Two: C.C. v. L.B. – When Legal Finality Trumps Emotional Bonds
Contrast that with C.C. v. L.B., a cautionary tale for sperm donors, no matter how active they are in a child’s life.
C.C. was a biological father who entered into a sperm donation agreement with R.B., the child’s biological mother, who was married to L.B. The agreement was clear: C.C. would have no legal parental rights. He signed away all parental status as part of L.B.’s second-parent adoption. But the contract also envisioned C.C. maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child, including weekly visitation and annual vacations.
For eleven years, that’s exactly what happened. Then, as the child approached age 12, C.C. was abruptly told she no longer wanted contact. He filed a parentage petition under §7611(d), claiming he held the child out as his own and received her into his home.
The trial court said he lacked standing, and the Court of Appeal agreed.
Why? Because under Family Code §8617, a final adoption order terminates all parental rights. C.C. had knowingly waived those rights. The court rejected his efforts to invoke third-parent theories (§7612), equitable estoppel, or even §3100 visitation. They made clear that §3100 doesn’t give independent standing to non-parents to file for visitation.
Translation: Once you consent to an adoption that strips you of parental rights, you can’t use side doors, no matter how involved you were, to come back in. Even decades of relationship history won’t undo a final judgment.
Takeaways: What These Cases Mean for Modern Families
- Legal recognition matters- early. Feehan’s case underscores that courts may still step in to protect the child’s best interests even if legal parentage isn’t settled. But you have to act fast and file while your role is still active.
- Adoption is final. C.C. gave up his parental rights, and the court enforced that waiver strictly. Sperm donors must understand that legal relinquishment can’t be undone, even with ongoing visitation or deep emotional ties.
- Same-sex couples and their co-parents should document intent clearly. Whether it’s a second-parent adoption, a parenting plan, or a cohabitation agreement, the law rewards clarity and punishes ambiguity.
- Don’t count on equitable estoppel. Courts won’t let someone sidestep a formal legal agreement, even if the outcome feels harsh. Emotional equity doesn’t create legal parentage.
Both Feehan and C.C. serve as powerful reminders that California courts continue to walk a fine line between protecting children’s best interests and honoring the finality of adoption orders and waivers. For families built outside traditional frameworks, the law may recognize your love, but only if you’ve dotted your i’s and crossed your t’s.
Channe G. Coles
Family Law Attorney
Santa Barbara & Ventura Counties
