In probate of the estate of an intestate California decedent, clear and convincing evidence of a non-biological parent-child relationship established the presumption of natural parentage forming the basis of the claim of heirship, even though the parent-child relationship was effectuated outside California.
The petitioner, Shannon, was the decedent’s cousin and claimed to be his sole intestate heir. Judy objected, claiming she qualified as a natural heir, having been held out as a natural child by Charles, the decedent’s uncle. Judy contended she was entitled to one-half of the decedent’s estate as issue of the decedent’s maternal grandparents. On the bifurcated issue of heirship, tried on stipulated facts, the probate court determined that Judy was an intestate heir. Under California law, clear and convincing evidence established that Charles received Judy into his home in Indiana and openly held Judy out as his natural child, including in public records dating back to at least 1961 and in his last will and testament. Thus, he was presumed to be Judy’s natural parent and she was therefore an heir at law.
The appellate court affirmed. Shannon failed to present evidence to rebut the presumption of natural parentage, and that presumption cannot be rebutted purely on public policy grounds. The appellate court also rejected Shannon’s argument that California law should not apply because the parent-child relationship was effectuated in Indiana. California law applies to determine parentage-related claims of heirship for a decedent domiciled in California at death. Moreover, California’s public policy encourages protection and preservation of the parent-child relationship and the result under Indiana law was immaterial to the analysis.
Case Details:
Source: California Lawyers Association – Wehsener v. Jernigan
Full Opinion: Fourth District Opinion PDF
Wehsener v. Jernigan: What California Families Need to Know About Non-Biological Parent-Child Relationships in Intestate Succession
If you’re managing the estate of a deceased loved one in California—or planning your own estate—and you’re dealing with complex family relationships that include non-biological parent-child bonds, you need to understand how California courts determine heirship. The Wehsener v. Jernigan case provides crucial guidance on how these relationships are legally recognized in probate proceedings.
Who This Matters For
This case is essential reading for California residents who:
The Case: What Happened in Wehsener v. Jernigan
When a California resident died without a will (intestate), two people claimed to be heirs:
Judy argued she was entitled to one-half of the estate as issue of the decedent’s maternal grandparents. The probate court agreed with Judy.
How Did the Court Decide? The Presumption of Natural Parentage
Under California law, the court found clear and convincing evidence that Charles:
Based on this evidence, Charles was presumed to be Judy’s natural parent, making her an heir at law.
Key Legal Principles: What You Need to Understand
1. The Presumption Cannot Be Rebutted on Public Policy Grounds Alone
Shannon failed to present evidence to rebut the presumption of natural parentage. The appellate court made clear that this presumption cannot be rebutted purely on public policy grounds.
2. California Law Applies Even When the Relationship Was Formed Elsewhere
Shannon argued that California law shouldn’t apply because the parent-child relationship was established in Indiana. The appellate court rejected this argument, ruling that California law applies to determine parentage-related claims of heirship for anyone domiciled in California at death.
3. California Public Policy Protects Parent-Child Relationships
The court emphasized that California’s public policy encourages protection and preservation of the parent-child relationship. The result under Indiana law was immaterial to the analysis.
What This Means for Your Family
If you’re dealing with similar circumstances—whether as someone who was raised by a non-biological parent or as an executor managing an estate with competing heirship claims—this case establishes that:
Protecting Your Family’s Future
Cases like Wehsener v. Jernigan highlight why proper estate planning is essential. When family dynamics include non-biological parent-child relationships, blended families, or other complex situations, having a clearly documented estate plan prevents costly litigation and protects the people you love.
At California Probate and Trust, PC, our experienced Sacramento-based attorneys help California residents navigate both probate proceedings and proactive estate planning. Whether you’re facing heirship disputes now or want to ensure your wishes are honored in the future, we provide transparent guidance tailored to your family’s unique situation.
Case Details
Source: California Lawyers Association – Wehsener v. Jernigan
Full Opinion: Fourth District Opinion PDF
Need Help with Probate or Estate Planning?
If you’re dealing with complex heirship issues, administering an estate, or want to create a comprehensive estate plan that protects your family, California Probate and Trust, PC offers free consultations to California residents.
Schedule your free consultation today at CPT.Law or call (866) 674-1130.