Ruling ‘Depublished’ in Duped Father Case

The California Supreme Court has put a hold on an appellate court’s decision that an Orange County man doesn’t have to pay child support for two of his children who were sired by his wife’s lover.

The Supreme Court “depublished” the decision by the 4th District Court of Appeal in Riverside. This means that the high court decided to let the ruling stand in this one case, but didn’t want it cited as legal authority in similar cases across the state.

The case involved Orange contractor David Reese, who had appealed a decision by a Riverside judge ordering him to pay child support for two children he had raised as his own.

But blood tests, which were ordered during a bitter divorce battle between Reese and his wife, Rebecca, later proved that the children were sired by her lover.

In a 2-to-1 decision, a three-judge panel held that once a judge ordered the blood tests, he was compelled to follow the results, not a long-standing California precedent that the husband of a married woman is legally presumed to be the father of her children.

The appeals court decision last April left the children--now aged 13 and 9--without any paternal support, and it also incensed several local prosecutors who asked the Supreme Court to strike it down.

The prosecutors, whose duties include collection of child support from nonpaying parents, said the opinion threatened to topple a 125-year-old California paternity law that fatherhood is determined by behavior, not biology. A father is the man who provides love and care, not necessarily the one who contributes the sperm.

“This holding would defeat the public policy of having presumptive parents for all children,” said Wayne D. Doss, head of family support in the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office.

The Supreme Court justices agreed.

In an order issued last week, Chief Justice Ronald George withdrew the ruling. Following its usual practice, the court gave no explanation for its decision.

But Justice Marvin Baxter said the court should consider the issues in the case on its own.

John L. Dodd, a Tustin attorney who represented Reese, said Baxter’s comment proved that the issues involving this area of paternity law need to be clarified.

Dodd noted that the Supreme Court decision will not affect his client because Reese and his wife settled the case shortly after the appellate court decision was issued.

In the settlement, she agreed not to seek child support and he agreed to drop a lawsuit demanding more than $2 million for being duped into raising another man’s children.

“It didn’t matter what the court did,” Dodd said. “The settlement was a done deal.”