Brown v. Washington
Filed 8/9/06 Brown v. Washington CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| RENEE BROWN, Petitioner and Appellant, v. CHET WASHINGTON, Respondent; SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, Intervener and Respondent. | A109925 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. Nos. FDI-99-032844; FPT-04-375345; DA 74543) |
Petitioner Renee Brown is the mother of nine-year-old Tylan Brown-Washington. Petitioner appeals from an order setting aside two judgments which established that respondent Chet Washington was Tylan's father. The trial court set aside one judgment on the basis of Family Code section 7645 et seq. and the other judgment on the basis of extrinsic fraud. We reverse because the trial court relied on the newly enacted Family Code statutes without notice to the parties and misapplied the doctrine of extrinsic fraud.
I. FACTS
We take the basic facts of this case primarily from the trial court's statement of decision.
Petitioner and respondent began an intimate relationship sometime before 1995. Tylan was born on May 1, 1997. The parties agree they were living together at the time Tylan was born.[1] Petitioner told respondent that he was Tylan's father. Respondent is listed as Tylan's father on the birth certificate, and Tylan's last name is a hyphenated combination of petitioner's and respondent's. Respondent admitted below that he regarded Tylan as his son and played an active role as his father--despite what he called his â€
