Navarro v. Hull
California Court of Appeal
1DissentPeek, J.
I dissent. As I interpret the majority opinion it holds that legitimation of a child under section 230 of the Civil Code does not amount to an adoption in the full sense of that term but merely changes “its status from that of an illegitimate child to that of a legitimate one” and the child thereby becomes “the legitimate child of both of its natural parents.” Prom this premise the majority holds that upon the question of custody (which is the primary issue before this court) “neither of such [natural] parents has a superior right to its custody. ...” In support thereof the majority cites the…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Blythe v. AyresCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Gavin v. Protestant Episcopal BishopCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Munson v. MunsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Gird v. BennettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Estate of LundCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.