Stanford Law School - Robert Crown Law Library

Filed 8/22/05 (opns. filed this date should appear in this sequence: S125912, S125643, & S126945)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

KRISTINE H.,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
S126945
v.
Ct.App. 2/3 B167799
LISA R.,
Los Angeles County
Defendant and Respondent.
Super. Ct. No. PF001550

We granted review in this case as well as in Elisa B. v. Superior Court
(Aug. 22, 2005, S125912) __ Cal.4th __, and K.M. v. E.G. (Aug. 22, 2005,
S125643) __ Cal.4th __, to consider the parental rights and obligations, if any, of a
woman with regard to a child born to her partner in a lesbian relationship.
The present action arises from a judgment stating that both Kristine H. and
her lesbian partner, Lisa R., are the parents of a child born to Kristine H. The
judgment was entered pursuant to a stipulation of the parties when Kristine H. was
pregnant. The Court of Appeal ruled that the judgment is void but that Lisa R.
still may have parental rights as a presumed parent under Family Code section
7611, subdivision (d), and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
We conclude that Kristine is estopped from attacking the validity of the
judgment to which she stipulated, and the Court of Appeal therefore erred in
1

---

reversing the superior court judgment denying Kristine’s motion to vacate the
judgment.
FACTS
On or about September 1, 2000, Kristine H. as plaintiff and Lisa R. as
defendant jointly filed in superior court a “Complaint to Declare Existence of
Parental Rights” that alleged that Kristine was seven months pregnant and Lisa
was her “partner.”1 They alleged that “[t]he hospital requires a legal judgment
establishing parental rights from this Superior Court in order to properly issue the
birth certificate,” that the parties are “the only legally recognized parents of said
child,” and that Lisa “is the legal second mother/parent” of the unborn child. The
parties requested a stipulated judgment declaring Kristine and Lisa “the joint
intended legal parents” of the unborn child with Kristine being listed on the birth
certificate “as mother” and Lisa being listed “in the space provided for ‘father.’ ”
On September 8, 2000, a judgment was filed in superior court declaring
that Kristine is the “biological, genetic and legal mother/parent” of the unborn
child and shall have joint custody with her “partner” Lisa, that Lisa “is the second
mother/parent” of the unborn child and shall have joint custody with Kristine, and
ordering that the child’s birth certificate list Kristine as “mother” and that Lisa “be
listed in the space provided for ‘father.’ ” The judgment states that Kristine and
Lisa “are the only legally recognized parents of [the unborn child] and take full
and complete legal, custodial and financial responsibility of said child.”
The child was born on October 3, 2000. She was given a surname formed
by hyphenating Kristine’s and Lisa’s surnames.

1
In order to protect the confidentiality of the minors, we will refer to the
parties by their first names.
2

---

Kristine and Lisa separated in September, 2002, when the child was almost
two years old.
On December 19, 2002, Kristine filed in the superior court a motion to set
aside the stipulated judgment. Kristine declared in support of the motion that she
and Lisa “began an intimate and caring relationship” in April, 1992. After about
six years, Kristine attempted without success to bear a child, engaging the services
of a fertility clinic. She later accepted the offer of a male friend to provide his
semen for a fee of $500 every three months. The friend agreed in writing that he
would not seek custody or visitation rights regarding any resulting child. After
about a year of trying, Kristine became pregnant through artificial insemination at
home using the friend’s semen. Kristine asserted that the stipulated judgment was
void because the superior court had lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue the
stipulated judgment because the child had not yet been born.
On December 20, 2002, Lisa filed a separate action for custody of the child.
The superior court denied the motion to vacate the stipulated judgment,
ruling that a judgment determining parentage may be entered before the birth of
the child. The Court of Appeal reversed on a different ground, ruling that the
stipulated judgment is void because “[t]he family court could not accept the
parties’ stipulation as a basis for entering the judgment of parentage.” The court
further ruled, however, that Lisa “may be able to establish parentage under the
[Uniform Parentage] Act” as a presumed parent under a gender-neutral application
of Family Code section 7611, subdivision (d), which provides that a man is
presumed to be a father if “[h]e receives the child into his home and openly holds
out the child as his natural child.” Holding that a child could have two parents of
the same sex, the court remanded the matter to the superior court “to conduct, in
accordance with the views expressed herein, such further proceedings and
3

---

amendment of pleadings as are appropriate in order to resolve the issues of Lisa’s
parentage and her rights, if any, to visitation and/or custody.”
We granted review.
DISCUSSION
The superior court denied Kristine’s motion to vacate the judgment,
rejecting Kristine’s sole argument that the judgment was void because it had been
issued prior to the birth of the child. The Court of Appeal reversed on a different
ground, concluding that the judgment was void because it was based upon a
stipulation of the parties, stating: “A determination of parentage cannot rest
simply on the parties’ agreement.”
We need not decide, however, whether the stipulated judgment is valid,
because we conclude that Kristine is estopped from challenging the validity of that
judgment.2
Estoppel long has been utilized to prevent a party from contesting the
validity of a judgment that was procured by that party. In Watson v. Watson
(1952) 39 Cal.2d 305, for example, the plaintiff obtained a divorce decree from his
first wife in Nevada and married the defendant, but the defendant filed for divorce
a year and a half later. While divorce proceedings were pending, the defendant
caused the plaintiff to be arrested for battery. The plaintiff was acquitted of
battery and sued the defendant for malicious prosecution. The defendant,
however, asserted the former defense that the plaintiff was precluded from suing
the defendant for a tort committed during the marriage. (See Peters v. Peters

2
We address only whether Kristine is estopped from challenging the validity
of the judgment. Nothing we say affects the rights or obligations of third parties,
whatever they may be.
4

---

(1909) 156 Cal. 32, overruled in Self v. Self (1962) 58 Cal.2d 683.) The parties’
marriage later was annulled on the ground that the plaintiff’s Nevada divorce from
his first wife was invalid, rendering the plaintiff’s marriage to the defendant
bigamous and void.
The plaintiff in Watson asserted that the rule precluding persons from suing
their spouses for torts committed during marriage did not apply, because their
marriage was bigamous and, thus, void from its inception. The plaintiff asserted,
in essence, that there had been no marriage, because the divorce decree he had
obtained in Nevada was invalid. This court held that it was unnecessary to
determine whether the parties were legally married, because the plaintiff was
estopped from denying the validity of the Nevada divorce. (Watson v. Watson,
supra, 39 Cal.2d 305, 307.) The court relied upon the decision in Rediker v.
Rediker (1950) 35 Cal.2d 796, 805, for the proposition that “ ‘the validity of a
divorce decree cannot be contested by a party who has procured the decree or a
party who has remarried in reliance thereon or by one who has aided another to
procure the decree so that the latter will be free to marry.’ ” (Watson v. Watson,
supra, 39 Cal.2d at p. 307; Spellens v. Spellens (1957) 49 Cal.2d 210, 220-221;
Dietrich v. Dietrich (1953) 41 Cal.2d 497, 505.)
In Harlan v. Harlan (1945) 70 Cal.App.2d 657, the plaintiff husband had
assisted the defendant in obtaining from Mexico a “mail order” divorce from her
first husband, who lived in Cuba, so that the plaintiff and the defendant could be
married. The divorce was invalid, because neither the defendant nor her first
husband resided in Mexico. Later, the plaintiff moved to annul his marriage to the
defendant on the grounds that the marriage was invalid because the defendant was
already married and had not been divorced. Although recognizing that the
defendant’s “mail order” divorce was invalid, the Court of Appeal held that the
5

---

plaintiff was “not in a position to take advantage of the invalidity of the Mexican
divorce,” having helped the defendant to obtain it and having enjoyed its benefits.
(Id. at p. 661.) The court observed: “His interest then was to procure the result
which he now seeks to nullify, after having lived with defendant as husband and
wife for over twelve years. That the sweet may have turned sour does not make it
conscionable that the plaintiff should be allowed now to undo what his own hand
and mind had so much to do in creating. Plaintiff is therefore not in a position to
question the validity of defendant’s divorce. This is on the principle . . . ‘that one
“with full knowledge of the facts shall not be permitted to act in a manner
inconsistent with his former position or conduct to the injury of another.”
[Citations.] Another way of stating the same general principle (applicable directly
to the instant case) is that one who has invoked the exercise of a jurisdiction
within the general powers of the court cannot seek to reverse its orders upon the
ground of lack of jurisdiction. “The principle opposing such action is one of
estoppel in the interest of a sound administration of the laws whereby the
regularity or even validity of an act procured by one himself cannot be raised – not
that the act is valid, for it may not be, and estoppel does not make valid the thing
complained of, but merely closes the mouth of the complainant.” ’ ” (Id. at pp.
661-662.)
In In re Marriage of Recknor (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 539, the husband
married the wife before her divorce was final in her previous marriage. Fifteen
years later, the wife petitioned for dissolution of the marriage, and the husband
responded by contending, in part, that he could not be ordered to pay spousal
support and attorney fees because the marriage was void. The wife testified that
she became pregnant with the husband’s child shortly after she had filed for
divorce, and that the husband had insisted that they get married before the child
6

---

was born even though they knew her divorce was not final. The Court of Appeal
upheld the superior court’s orders that the husband pay spousal support and
attorney fees. Relying upon our decision in Spellens v. Spellens, supra, 49 Cal.2d
210, 220-221, the court recognized that although the marriage may not have been
valid, the husband was estopped from challenging its validity, stating: “In this
case, Ralph was properly estopped from denying that he was validly married to
Eve. He went through a formal marriage ceremony with her, knowing that her
divorce was not final, and continued to live with her as her husband for 15 years,
during which time they had two children. Further, Ralph waited almost 15 years to
attempt to assert the invalidity of his marriage to Eve.” (Recknor, supra, at
p. 547.)
The estoppel doctrine was applied to preclude a party to a stipulated
judgment of paternity from challenging its validity in Adoption of Matthew B.
(1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1239. In that case, a married couple arranged with a
surrogate mother to have her artificially inseminated with the husband’s semen.
After the baby was born, the surrogate and the husband stipulated to entry of a
judgment of paternity declaring the husband to be the father, and the surrogate
permitted the wife to adopt the child. Ten months later, the surrogate petitioned to
withdraw her consent to the adoption and, eight months after that, moved to vacate
the judgment of paternity. The Court of Appeal held that the surrogate was
estopped from challenging the validity of the judgment to which she had
stipulated. (Id. at p. 1269.) After noting that the superior court had subject matter
jurisdiction to issue the judgment of paternity (id. at pp. 1268-1269), the Court of
Appeal held: “[E]ven were we to assume that the entry of judgment was an act in
excess of the trial court’s jurisdiction, [the surrogate]’s execution of the stipulation
estops her from urging this point on appeal. Where a court has subject matter
7

---

jurisdiction, a party’s request for or consent to action beyond the court’s statutory
power may estop the party from complaining that the court’s action exceeds its
jurisdiction. [Citation.] Whether estoppel applies ‘depends on the importance of
the irregularity not only to the parties but to the functioning of the courts and in
some instances on other considerations of public policy.’ [Citation.] Given [the
surrogate]’s stipulation to a judgment establishing [the husband]’s paternity and
her designation of [the husband] as [the child]’s natural father in numerous
documents, including the birth certificate and the petition to withdraw consent, to
entertain her attack on the paternity judgment would impermissibly permit her
‘ “. . . to trifle with the courts.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] It would also contravene
the public policy favoring the finality of paternity judgments . . . , the policy in
favor of speedy determinations of paternity, and the policy that ‘abhors bastardy
proceedings . . . .’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1269, fns. omitted.)
In In re Marriage of Hinman (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 711, the wife petitioned
for dissolution of her marriage of over seven years, listing five minor children of
the marriage, including two children who had been born prior to the marriage and
had been fathered by the wife’s former husband. The parties stipulated that the
wife and husband would share joint physical and legal custody of all five children,
and a judgment was entered. Two months later, the wife moved to strip the
husband of all custody over the two children fathered by her former husband,
arguing that the judgment was in excess of the court’s jurisdiction because the
husband had no biological connection to the children. The Court of Appeal held
that the wife could not attack the validity of the judgment to which she had
stipulated: “Here, [the wife] herself invoked the jurisdiction of the court by
alleging in her petition that both [children] were minor children ‘of the marriage.’
That allegation ‘confers subject matter jurisdiction upon the court to determine
8

---

custody, a jurisdiction which does not vanish even if later it is shown there are no
such children.’ [Citations.] [¶] Having initially invoked the court’s power to
determine custody, [the wife] then stipulated to a judgment giving [the husband]
joint custody. A party who participates in or consents to a judgment which
otherwise would be beyond the court’s authority is precluded from attacking it
collaterally, absent exceptional circumstances. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 716.)
We need not, and do not, therefore, determine whether the stipulated
judgment entered into by Kristine and Lisa is valid; we hold only that Kristine
may not now challenge the validity of that judgment. (11 Witkin, Summary of
Cal. Law (9th ed. 1990) Husband and Wife, § 110, p. 130 [“Application of the
estoppel doctrine does not give the decree any validity, but merely prevents certain
persons from achieving inequitable ends by attacking it.”].) Kristine invoked the
jurisdiction of the superior court to determine the parentage of the unborn child
under the Uniform Parentage Act. The court thus had subject matter jurisdiction.3
Family Code section 7630, subdivision (b), provides that “Any interested party

3
“Lack of jurisdiction in its most fundamental or strict sense means an entire
absence of power to hear or determine the case, an absence of authority over the
subject matter or the parties. [Citation.] Familiar to all lawyers are such examples
as these: A state court has no jurisdiction to determine title to land located outside
its territorial borders, for the subject matter is entirely beyond its authority or
power. [Citation.] A court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the marital
status of persons when neither is domiciled within the state. [Citations.] A court
has no jurisdiction to render a personal judgment against one not personally served
with process within its territorial borders, under the rule of Pennoyer v. Neff, 95
U.S. 714 [24 L. Ed. 565]. [Citation.] A court has no jurisdiction to hear or
determine a case where the type of proceeding or the amount in controversy is
beyond the jurisdiction defined for that particular court by statute or constitutional
provision. [Citation.]) Other examples of lack of jurisdiction in this fundamental
sense will readily occur.” (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d
280, 288.)
9

---

may bring an action at any time for the purpose of determining the existence or
nonexistence of the father and child relationship presumed under subdivision (d)
or (f) of Section 7611.” Family Code section 7633 provides that “An action under
this chapter may be brought before the birth of the child.” The chapter to which
section 7633 refers governs the determination of both the father and child
relationship and the mother and child relationship. Kristine then stipulated to
entry of a judgment naming Lisa as the child’s other parent, obtained a birth
certificate naming Lisa as the child’s other parent, and co-parented the child with
Lisa for nearly two years. We held in the companion case of Elisa B. v. Superior
Court, supra, __ Cal.4th at page ___ [at p. 10], that the superior court can
determine that a child has “two parents, both of whom are women.” The superior
court, thus, had subject matter jurisdiction to issue the judgment establishing
parentage in the present case.
Given that the court had subject matter jurisdiction to determine the
parentage of the unborn child, and that Kristine invoked that jurisdiction,
stipulated to the issuance of a judgment, and enjoyed the benefits of that judgment
for nearly two years, it would be unfair both to Lisa and the child to permit
Kristine to challenge the validity of that judgment. To permit her to attack the
validity of the judgment she sought and to which she stipulated would “ ‘ “trifle
with the courts.” ’ ” (Adoption of Matthew B., supra, 232 Cal.App.3d 1239,
1269.) It would also contravene the public policy favoring that a child has two
parents rather than one. (Elisa B. v. Superior Court, supra, __ Cal.4th at p. ___ [at
p. 16].) Kristine, therefore, is estopped from challenging the validity of the
stipulated judgment. (Adoption of Matthew B., supra, 232 Cal.App.3d at p. 1269.)
10

---

DISPOSITION
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed.
MORENO, J.
WE CONCUR: GEORGE, C. J.
KENNARD,
J.
BAXTER,
J.
WERDEGAR,
J.
CHIN,
J.
11

---

See last page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.

Name of Opinion Kristine H. v. Lisa R.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Unpublished Opinion

Original Appeal
Original Proceeding
Review Granted XXX 120 Cal.App.4th 143
Rehearing Granted
__________________________________________________________________________________

Opinion No.

S126945
Date Filed: August 22, 2005
__________________________________________________________________________________

Court:

Superior
County: Los Angeles
Judge: Richard A. Curtis, Temporary Judge*
__________________________________________________________________________________

Attorneys for Appellant:

Honey Kessler Amado and Lynn Langley for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Liberty Counsel, Mathew D. Staver, Rena M. Lindevaldsen and Mary E. McAlister for Kristina Sica as
Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Attorneys for Respondent:

Leslie Ellen Shear; Goodman & Metz and Diane M. Goodman for Defendant and Respondent.

Law Offices of Robert S. Scuderi, Robert S. Scuderi; Law Offices of Emanuel Sedacca and Emanuel
Sedacca as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Shannon Minter, Courtney Joslin; Jennifer C. Pizer and Amber Garza for Children of Lesbians and Gays
Everywhere, Equality California, Family Matters, Family Pride Coalition, Growing Generations, Lambda
Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Our Family Coalition, the Pop
Luck Club and Southern California Assisted Reproduction Attorneys as Amici Curiae on behalf of
Defendant and Respondent.

ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Clare Pastore, Christine Sun, Martha Matthews; ACLU
Foundation of Northern California, Alan Schlosser, Tamara Lange; ACLU Foundation of San Diego and
Imperial Counties, Jordan Budd, Elvira Cacciavillani; ACLU Foundation, Inc., Romana Mancini; Lesbian
and Gay Rights Project, James Esseks; Manatt Phelps & Phillips, Vanessa H. Eiseman; Maxie Rheinheimer
Stephens & Vrevich and Darin L. Wessel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California,
the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, the American Civil Liberties Union of San
Diego and Imperial Counties and the American Civil Liberties Union as Amici Curiae on behalf of
Defendant and Respondent.

*Pursuant to California Constitution, article VI, section 21.
1

---

Page 2 – counsel continued – S126945

Attorneys for Respondent:

Maxie Rheinheimer Stephens & Vrevich, Darin L. Wessel; Laura J. Maechtlen; and Vanessa H. Eisemann
for Tom Homann Law Association, Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, Lesbian and Gay Lawyers
Association of Los Angeles, and Sacramento Lawyers for the Equality of Gays and Lesbians as Amici
Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Shannan Wilber; Diane Michelsen; Van Deusen,Youmans and Walmsley and Robert R. Walmsley for
Legal Services for Children as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Debra Back Marley and Robert C. Fellmeth for Children’s Advocacy Institute as Amicus Curiae on behalf
of Defendant and Respondent.

Katina Ancar for National Center for Youth Law as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and
Respondent.

Law Offices of Willard K. Halm and Willard K. Halm for Southern California Assisted Reproduction
Attorneys, Family Pride Coalition and the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center as Amici Curiae on behalf
of Defendant and Respondent.

Alice Bussiere for The Center for Children’s Rights at Whittier Law School, The Legal Aid Foundation of
Los Angeles, The National Center for Youth Law, The Youth Law Center and Joan Heifetz Hollinger and
the Children’s Advocacy Project, Boalt Hall as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent and
Minors.

Donna Wickham Furth; Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney and William A. Gould, Jr., for Northern
California Association of Counsel for Children, National Association of Counsel for Children and The
California Psychological Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Minors.

Geragos & Geragos, Gregory R. Ellis; and Rebekah A. Fye for The Los Angeles County Bar Association,
The San Fernando Valley Bar Association and its Family Law Center, The Family Law Section of the
Beverly Hills Bar Association, The Bar Association of San Francisco, The Association of Certified Law
Specialists and Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles as Amici Curiae on behalf of Minors.

Morrison & Foerster, Ruth N. Borenstein and Johnathan E. Mansfield for California NOW, Inc., and
California Women’s Law Center as Amici Curiae.

2

---

Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):

Honey Kessler Amado
261 South Wetherly Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
(310) 550-8214

Leslie Ellen Shear
16830 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 347
Encino, CA 91436-1749
(818) 501-3691

Shannon Minter
National Center for Lesbian Rights
870 Market Street, Suite 370
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 392-6257
3

---

Opinion Information

Date:	Docket Number:
Mon, 08/22/2005	S126945

Disposition
Aug 22 2005	Opinion: Reversed

Dockets
Aug 6 2004	Petition for review filed   appellant Kristine Renee H.
Aug 12 2004	Received Court of Appeal record
Aug 23 2004	Received:
Aug 27 2004	Answer to petition for review filed   By counsel for Respondent/Real Party in Interest {Lisa Ann R.,} / CRC 40(K).
Aug 31 2004	Received:   letter from Attorney Marc Gradstein, (NON-PARTY) requesting depublication of C/A Opinion. Request is 1 day late.
Sep 1 2004	Letter sent to:   Counsel regarding Certification of Interested Entities or Persons.
Sep 1 2004	Petition for review granted (civil case)   Votes: George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Brown, and Moreno, JJ.
Sep 13 2004	Certification of interested entities or persons filed   on behalf of petnr/applnt KRISTINE RENEE H.
Sep 22 2004	Issues ordered limited   Pursuant to Rule 29(a) of the California Rules of Court, the parties are directed to brief the following issues: (1) Is the judgment establishing parental rights issued September 8, 2000 invalid? Is the judgment invalid because it was based upon a stipulation? If so, is such stipulated judgment void or voidable? (2) If the judgment establishing parental rights is invalid, may the superior court nevertheless determine whether Lisa R. is the parent of the child? (3) May Family Code section 7611 be applied in a gender-neutral fashion to determine whether a parent-child relationship exists between a woman and a child? May Lisa R. be determined to be a parent of a child under cases such as People v. Sorensen (1968) 68 Cal.2d 280 and Johnson v. Calvert (1993) 5 Cal.4th 84 that consider a person's intention to cause the birth of the child? (5) What impact, if any, will Family Code section 297.5, which will become effective on January 1, 2005, have on the issues in this case? The order issued by the Court of Appeal on June 13, 2003 staying all proceedings in Los Angeles Superior Court case number PF001550, as modified by the order issued by the Court of Appeal on June 19, 2003 conferring jurisdiction upon the superior court for the limited purpose of determining Lisa R.'s interim right to visitation shall remain in effect pending the finality of proceedings in this court and thereafter as ordered by the Court of Appeal. George, C.J., was absent and did not participate.
Oct 5 2004	Request for extension of time filed   by appellant Krstine Renee H., asking to 12-01-04 to file opening brief on the merits
Oct 12 2004	Extension of time granted   To November 1, 2004 to file appellant's opening brief on the merits.
Oct 29 2004	Request for extension of time filed   by appellant Kristine Renee H., asking to 11-10-04 to file opening brief on the merits
Nov 3 2004	Extension of time granted   To November 10, 2004 to file appellant's opening brief on the merits.
Nov 9 2004	Opening brief on the merits filed   appellant Kristine Renee H.
Dec 10 2004	Request for extension of time filed   by respondent, asking until January 19, 2005 to file respondent's answer brief on the merits
Dec 13 2004	Request for extension of time filed   By AC American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California requesting that the due date to file the application and consolidated AC brief will be 30 days after the final brief on the merits is filed in the last of the three related cases.
Dec 15 2004	Extension of time granted   To January 19, 2005 to file respondent's answer brief on the merits.
Dec 23 2004	Order filed   The application of American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California for permission to file a single amicus curiae brief to be considered in cases S126945, S125643 and S125912 is hereby granted. The application and brief must be filed within thirty(30) days after the finla brief on the merits is filed in the last of the three cases.
Jan 14 2005	Request for extension of time filed   by the National Center for Lesbian Rights requesting that the due date to file the application and amicus briefs be 30 days after the final briefs on the merits is filed in the last of the 3 cases.
Jan 20 2005	Request for extension of time filed   by respondent Lisa Ann R., requesting a 9-day extension to and including January 28, 2005 to file respondent's answer brief on the merits.
Jan 21 2005	Request for extension of time filed   by Los Angeles County Bar Association, Family Law Section, asking additional time to file amicus brief
Jan 24 2005	Extension of time granted   To January 28, 2005 to file Respondent's answer brief on the merits. No further extensions are contemplated.
Jan 25 2005	Extension of time granted   The application for extension of time filed by amicus curiae National Center for Lesbian Rights to serve and file its application and amicus curiae brief is hereby granted. The application and amicus curiae brief must be filed within thirty days after the final brief on the merits is filed in S125643.
Jan 26 2005	Order filed   The order filed on Jan. 25, 2005 is modified as follows: " the application for ext. of time filed by amicus curiae National Center for Lesbian Rights to serve and file its application and amicus curiae brief is hereby granted. The application and amicus curiae brief must be filed within 30 days after the final brief on the merits is filed in S126945.
Jan 26 2005	Extension of time granted   for amicus curiae LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR ASSOC. to serve and file its amicus curiae brief.The application and amicus curiae brief must be served and filed within 30 days after the final on the merits is filed in S126945.
Jan 31 2005	Answer brief on the merits filed   By counsel for Respondent {Lisa Ann R.,} / CRC 40.1 (b).
Feb 2 2005	Filed:   request for clarification for a/c LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION & its FAMILY LAW SECTION
Feb 7 2005	Order filed   In response to the Request for Clarification filed by the Los Angeles County Bar Association on February 2, 2005, this court clarifies that the Los Angeles County Bar Association may file a single application to file an amicus curiae brief, with the brief attached, in cases S126945, S125643 and S125912 within thirty days after the final brief on the merits is filed in S126945.
Feb 18 2005	Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief   by Law Offices of Robert S. Scuderi on behalf of "Estate of P. Z. Lopez" supports respondent Lisa Ann R.
Feb 18 2005	Request for extension of time filed   to file Reply Brief/Merits of appellant KRISTINE RENEE H.
Feb 22 2005	Received:
Feb 23 2005	Order filed   Pursuant to the order filed in K.M. v. E.G. (S125643) on February 23, 2005, calendar preference is granted in the above entitled matter on the court's own motion.
Feb 25 2005	Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted   Robert S. Scuderi and Emanuel Sedacca in support of respondent.
Feb 25 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed   Robert S. Scuderi and Emanuel Sedacca in support of respondent. Any party may file a single consolidated answer to all amicus curiae briefs within 20 days after the last date that an application to file an amicus curiae brief may be filed under rule 29.1 (f)(2).
Mar 1 2005	Extension of time granted   On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file appellant's reply brief on the merits is extended to and including March 9, 2005. No further extensions will be granted.
Mar 9 2005	Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)   appellant KRISTINE RENEE H.
Mar 11 2005	Request for extension of time filed   by California NOW and California Women's Law Center for (1) to file a single amicus curiae application and brief to be considered in all three cases and (2) for an order extending time to April 8, 2005, to file amici's brief. (Consolidated filing with S125912 and S125643)
Mar 16 2005	Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief   Northern California Association of Counsel for Children and National Association of Counsel for Children.
Mar 25 2005	Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted   Northern California Association of Counsel for Children and the National Association of Counsels for Children for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the interests of the children is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party on or before April 28, 2005.
Mar 25 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed   Northern California Association of Counsel for Children and the Natioinal Association of Counsels for Children in support of the interests of the children.
Mar 25 2005	Request for extension of time to file amicus curiae brief   On application of amicus curiae California NOW, Inc., and California Women's Law Center and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file its amicus curiae brief is extended to and including April 8, 2005. Amici's request to file a single amicus curiae application and brief to be considered in all three cases (S125643, S125912 and S126945) is hereby granted. Amici is to provide three separate originals of the application and brief. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party on or before April 28, 2005.
Apr 6 2005	Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief   by Children's Advocacy Institute in support of respondent
Apr 8 2005	Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief   by Kristina Sica in support of appellant
Apr 8 2005	Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice (granted case)   Rena M. Lindevaldsen as counsel for amicus curiae Kristina Sica.
Apr 8 2005	Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice (granted case)   Matthew D. Staver as counsel for amicus curiae Kristina Sica.
Apr 8 2005	Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief   by Tom Homann Law Associates, Bay Area Lawyers for Indindividual Freedom, Lesbian & Gay Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, and Sacramento Lawyers for the Equality of Gay & Lesbians in support of respondent Lisa Ann R. (and in support of K. M. in S125643, and real party in interest Emily B.& El Dorado County in S125912)
Apr 8 2005	Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief   by California Now, Inc., and California Women's Law Center
Apr 8 2005	Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief   by Legal Services for Children, Robert R. Walmsley Jr., and Diane Michelsen in support of real party in interest.
Apr 8 2005	Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief   The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties and the American Civil Liberties union in support of RPI {Lisa R.,}
Apr 8 2005	Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief   The Center for Children's Rights at Whittier Law School; The National Center for Youth Law; The Youth Law Center; Joan Heifetz Hollinger and The Children's Advocacy Project; Boalt Hall in support of real party in interest Lisa R.
Apr 11 2005	Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief   by Los Angeles County Bar Association, San Fernando Valley Bar Association and its Family Law Section, Family Law Section of the Berverly Hills Bar Association Bar Association of San Francisco, Association of Certified Family Law Specialists, and Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles. (CRC 40.1b)
Apr 12 2005	Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted   The application of American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, et al., for permission to file amici curiae brief in support of Respondent and Real Party in Interest Lisa R. is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party on or before April 28, 2005.
Apr 12 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed   American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, et al., in support of Respondent and Real Party in Interest Lisa R.
Apr 12 2005	Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted   Children's Advocacy Institute in support of respondent.
Apr 12 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed   Children's Advocacy Institute in support of Respondent. Answer is due on or before April 28, 2005.
Apr 12 2005	Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief   Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere et al., in support of real party in interest (CRC 40.1b)
Apr 12 2005	Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted   The Center for Children's Rights at Whittier Law School; The National Center for Youth Law; The Youth Law Center; Joan Heifetz Hollinger and The Children's Advocacy Project; Boalt Hall in support of RPI. Answer is due on or before April 28, 2005.
Apr 12 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed   The Center for Children's Rights at Whittier Law School; The National Center for Youth Law; The Youth Law Center; Joan Heifetz Hollinger and The Children's Advocacy Project; Boalt Hall in support of RPI. Answer is due on or before April 28, 2005.
Apr 12 2005	Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted   Legal Services for Children, Robert R. Walmsley Jr., and Diane Michelsen in support of RPI.
Apr 12 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed   Legal Services for Children, Robert R. Walmsley Jr., and Diane Michelsen in support of RPI. Answer is due on or before April 28, 2005.
Apr 12 2005	Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted   Los Angeles County Bar Association, San Fernando Valley Bar Association and its Family Law Section, Family Law Section of the Berverly Hills Bar Assn. Bar Assn. of San Francisco, Assn. of Certified Family Law Specialists, Women Lawyers Assn. of Los Angeles.
Apr 12 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed   Los Angeles County Bar Association, San Fernando Valley Bar Association and its Family Law Section, Family Law Section of the Berverly Hills Bar Assn. Bar Assn. of San Francisco, Assn. of Certified Family Law Specialists, Women Lawyers Assn. of Los Angeles. Answer is due on or before April 28, 2005.
Apr 12 2005	Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted   California Now, Inc., and California Women's Law Center .
Apr 12 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed   California Now, Inc., and California Women's Law Center. Answer is due on or before April 28, 2005.
Apr 13 2005	Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice granted   Rena M. Lindevaldsen of the State of Florida as counsel for AC Kristina Sica.
Apr 13 2005	Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice granted   Mathew D. Staver of the State of Florida as counsel for AC Kristina Sica.
Apr 13 2005	Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted   Kristina Sica in support of appellant.
Apr 13 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed   Kristina Sica in support of appellant. Answer is due on or before April 28, 2005.
Apr 13 2005	Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted   Children of Lesbians and Gays everywhere et al., in support of RPI.
Apr 13 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed   Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere et al., in support of RPI. Answer is due on or before April 28, 2005.
Apr 14 2005	Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted   Tom Homann Law Association, Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association of Los Angeles and Sacramento Lawyers for the Equality of Gays and Lesbians in support of RPI.
Apr 14 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed   Tom Homann Law Association, Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association of Los Angeles and Sacramento Lawyers for the Equality of Gays and Lesbians in support of RPI. Answer is due on or before April 28, 2005.
Apr 18 2005	Received:   Letter from Wilke, Fleury, et al dated 4-14-05, requesitng the Court to accept letter as California Psychological Association's request for joinder in amici curiae brief by Northern California Association of Counsel for Children (NCACC) and National Association of Counsel for Children (NACC). (Received in Sacramento)
Apr 20 2005	Order filed   The request for joinder by The California Psychological Association ("CPA") to join in the amici curiae Northern California Association of Counsel for Children ("NCACC") and National Association of Counsel for Children ("NACC") is hereby granted.
Apr 25 2005	Filed:   Notice of Correction of Attorney Information for Mary E. McAlister counsel for AC Kristina Sica.
Apr 26 2005	Received:   document from counsel for petitioner Kristine Renee H. re: "notice of unavailability"
Apr 28 2005	Request for extension of time filed   by appellant Kristen H. to file responses to amicus briefs, asking to May 30, 2005.
May 3 2005	Case ordered on calendar   5/24/05, 9am, S.F.
May 4 2005	Filed:   Notice of Unavailability from counsel for Respondent. Counsel will be unavailable from May 6-16 and August 4-15.
May 4 2005	Extension of time granted   To May 11, 2005 to file appellant's responses to AC Briefs.
May 10 2005	Order filed   The order filed May 4, 2005, extending the time to May 11, 2005 to file appellant's responses to AC Briefs, is hereby amended to read in its entirety: "On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time serve and file appellant's responses to AC Briefs is hereby extended to and including May 11, 2005. No further extensions of time are contemplated."
May 12 2005	Filed:   Request of Respondent (Lisa R.) to divide oral argument time.
May 16 2005	Request for Extended Media coverage Filed   By The California Channel. (Live Broadcast)
May 17 2005	Received:   letter from counsel for appellant {Kristine H.,} dated May 16, 2005 requesting permission to file letter brief re: New Authority {LIBERS v. BLACK, filed May 9, 2005 by the 6 DCA}.
May 17 2005	Letter brief filed   By counsel for appellant {Kristine H.,} dated May 16, 2005 re: New Authority (Librers v. Black).
May 18 2005	Received:   Letter from counsel for appellant {Kristine H.,} dated May 17, 2005 re: notification that Appellant will not be filing any responses to AC Briefs.
May 18 2005	Request for Extended Media coverage Granted   Request for media coverage, filed May 16, 2005, is granted, subject to the conditions set forth in rule 980, California Rules or Court.
May 20 2005	Order filed   The request of counsel for Respondent to allow two counsel to argue on behalf of Respondent at oral argument is hereby granted.
May 20 2005	Order filed   the request of Respondent to allocate to amicus curiae National Center of Lesbian Rights 10 minutes of Respondent's 30-minute allotted time for oral argument is granted.
May 23 2005	Request for Extended Media coverage Filed   Stephanie Mullen of the Associated Press. (Still camera coverage)
May 23 2005	Request for Extended Media coverage Granted   Request for media coverage, Filed May 23, 2005, is granted, subject to the conditions set forth in rule 980, California Rules of Court.
May 24 2005	Cause argued and submitted
Aug 22 2005	Opinion filed: Judgment reversed   Opinion by Moreno, J. -----joined by George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, and Chin, JJ.
Sep 22 2005	Remittitur issued (civil case)
Oct 3 2005	Received:   receipt for remittitur CA 2/3.

Briefs
Nov 9 2004	Opening brief on the merits filed
Jan 31 2005	Answer brief on the merits filed
Feb 25 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed
Mar 9 2005	Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)
Mar 25 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed
Apr 12 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed
Apr 12 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed
Apr 12 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed
Apr 12 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed
Apr 12 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed
Apr 12 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed
Apr 13 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed
Apr 13 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed
Apr 14 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed

If you'd like to submit a brief document to be included for this opinion, please submit an e-mail to the SCOCAL website