arrow left
arrow right
  • Estate of  CECIL DAVISDecedent's Estate document preview
  • Estate of  CECIL DAVISDecedent's Estate document preview
  • Estate of  CECIL DAVISDecedent's Estate document preview
  • Estate of  CECIL DAVISDecedent's Estate document preview
  • Estate of  CECIL DAVISDecedent's Estate document preview
  • Estate of  CECIL DAVISDecedent's Estate document preview
  • Estate of  CECIL DAVISDecedent's Estate document preview
  • Estate of  CECIL DAVISDecedent's Estate document preview
						
                                

Preview

Jeffrey R. Loew, Esq. (SBN 216808) Sarah B. Sheppard (Bar No. 234341) Deborah M. Hussey Freeland, Esq. (SBN 228768) LOEW LAW GROUP, A Professional Law Corporation 1650 Borel Place, Suite 123 7/13/2020 11:27 AM San Mateo, CA 94402 (650) 397-8700 (650) 397-8889 (fax) Attorneys for Petitioner Yvonne Davis SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 In the Estate of Case No. 18-PRO-00296 CECIL DAVIS VERIFIED PETITION TO DETERMINE 12 HEIRSHIP 13 Deceased. Date: Sept. 4TH , 2020 14 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: 28 — Probate 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PETITION t Petitioner Yvonne Davis (" Yvonne" or "Petitioner"), in her individual capacity, brings this Petition to Determine Heirship to establish that Yvonne and her nephew and niece, Aaron Clark (" Aaron" ) and Staci Clark ("Staci"), are the sole heirs of Decedent Cecil Davis ("Cecil" or "Decedent" ), who died intestate. Aaron and Staci are the children of Yvonne's deceased twin sister, Yvette. Petitioner alleges as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Cecil married Yvonne and Yvette's mother, Vesser Davis ("Vesser") in 1954, when Yvonne and Yvette were just two years old. Cecil treated Yvonne and Yvette as his own daughters for their entire lives from infancy, and for a period of more than sixty years until his 10 death on December 9, 2017. Although Yvonne and Yvette were not Cecil's biological children, he treated them as his children, both formally and informally, in every manner except, on 12 information and belief, the final act of obtaining a formal adoption certificate. 13 2. Cecil gave Yvonne and Yvette his surname of Davis, received them into his 14 home, and openly held them out as his natural children. As adults, Yvonne and Yvette remained 15 in constant familial contact with Cecil, visiting him fiequently. After Yvette's untimely death, 16 Yvonne was there for Cecil throughout his last years. Yvonne and each of her children were at 17 Cecil's side constantly in the last years of his life, serving as his caregivers until his death. 18 3. For more than sixty years, Cecil represented to the world, including the Federal 19 and State government agencies, that Yvonne and Yvette were his daughters. On information and 20 belief, he applied for and received benefits for them as his daughters. The Federal and State 21 govenunents and other agencies accepted Yvonne and Yvette as Cecil's daughters, and the 22 Department of Defense even granted Yvonne security clearance under her adopted name of 23 Yvonne Davis. Yvonne was granted a U.S. passport under the name of Yvonne Davis, her 24 correct family name, as well. 25 4. Cecil died on December 9, 2017. This Court issued an order appointing Yvonne 26 as personal representative of the Estate on June 28, 2018. 27 5. Based on the foregoing, Yvonne and Yvette were Cecil's legal and natural daughters under Family Code $ 7611(d). Yvonne, Aaron, and Staci are therefore the heirs of PETITION Cecil's entire estate (the "Estate") under Probate Code ( 6453 and I'I6402(a). As described below, Yvonne, Aaron and Staci are also heirs of the Estate through the operation of Probate Code $ 6455 and the doctrine of equitable adoption, and alternatively under Probate Code $ 6454. 6. Finally, even if the Court should incorrectly find that Yvonne, Aaron and Staci are not Cecil's heirs, they are nonetheless entitled, under Probate Code section 6402.5, to Vesser's entire community property share of the family residence, which is the Estate's primaiy asset. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 10 A. The Davis Familv Was Formed in Yvonne and Yvette's Infancv. 7. Twin sisters Yvonne and Yvette were born on August 8, 1952 in Hope, Arkansas, 12 to Henry Hill and Vesser Hill. 13 8. Vesser divorced Henry and left Arkansas with her infant daughters in 1954. She 14 married Cecil Davis in Nevada on November 6, 1954. 15 9. Upon his marriage to Vesser, Cecil also gave his surname to her daughters, 16 Yvonne and Yvette. Throughout their lives, Yvonne and Yvette had very little contact with their 17 biological father. From the age of two, Yvonne and Yvette have known "Davis" to be their only 18 surname (until Yvette married), and Cecil Davis to be their father. 19 B. For Six Decades, Cecil Onenlv Held Out Yvonne and Yvette As His Own Dauahters. 20 10. For their entire lives, Cecil openly held out Yvonne and Yvette as his own 21 daughters. He called them his daughters within their immediate and extended family, as well as 22 in his interactions at his work, at Yvonne and Yvette's school, at the family's church, with their 23 physicians, with government agencies, and with the general public. 24 11. Accordingly, Cecil was never heard to use the term "stepchild" to describe 25 Yvonne or Yvette, or "step-grandchildren" to describe Yvonne or Yvette's children. The topic 26 of adoption never arose: it was clear to all and taken for granted by all that Cecil was Yvonne 27 and Yvette's dad. The public never questioned whether Cecil was Yvonne's or Yvette's father. 28 PETITION For example, fellow church menibers and neighbors would always refer to Cecil as "your father" when speaking to Yvonne or Yvette. 12. Cecil never said nor did anything that would suggest that he was not Yvonne and Yvette's father, and all of his actions were consistent with lus firm belief that they were his daughters. 13. In every way, Cecil wanted to provide for Yvonne and Yvette and their cluldren. Cecil served in the Army in the Korean War and sought benefits thereafter. On information and belief, Cecil's application to the Department of Defense for benefits identified Yvonne and Yvette as his daughters and as eligible for his benefits. Around that time, Cecil also obtained 10 Kaiser health coverage for Yvonne and Yvette as his daughters. 14. Cecil also took out a life insurance policy as a federal employee, listing Yvonne 12 as his daughter and designated beneficiary. 13 15. Cecil's obituary stated that "Mr. Davis is survived by his daughter Yvonne Davis 14 of Menlo Park, California, four grandchildren, and four great-grandchildren." 15 C. Cecil AIwavs Treated Yvonne and Yvette and Their Families as His Children and Grandchildren. 16 17 16. Yvonne and Yvette always called Cecil "Daddy." He took care of them as their 18 father. As adults, they in turn remained in close contact with him, based on the parent-child 19 relationship between them. 20 17. Yvonne's son and daughter, Brandon Strong and Starr Strong, called Cecil 21 "Daddy Cecil," and treated him as their grand father. He regarded and held them out as his 22 grandchildren for their whole lives. Yvette's two children, Aaron and Staci, also called Cecil 23 "Daddy Cecil," and treated him as their grandfather. He regarded and held all of them out as his 24 grandchildren for their whole lives. 25 18. Over the course of their entire lives, Cecil told the world in every way that 26 Yvonne and Yvette were his children. As stated above, Yvonne and the rest of the family took 27 care of Cecil in reliance on this understanding. 28 PETITION 4 I 19. The roles of Yvonne and her children in Cecil's care increased after Vesser died 2 in 2007. After Vesser's death, Yvonne, Starr and Brandon visited Cecil daily, and also took on 3 additional care functions that Vesser had performed, such as scheduling and taking Cecil to his 4 doctor appointments. 5 20. Yvette was unable to assist in Cecil's care in her final years because of her own 6 terminal illness. Her own children, Aaron and Staci, were likewise focused on Yvette's care, but 7 throughout their lives they maintained regular contact with Cecil, and treated Cecil with the 8 regard appropriate for their natural grandfather and their children's great-grandfather. 9 21. Yvonne conunitted tremendous effort to caring for her aging father in the last 10 three years ofhis life, even though she was still working. During the final episode ofhis illness, 11 Yvonne ensured that either she or her children were with Cecil all day, every day. They cared 12 for him around the clock at his home, and would not leave him alone while he was in the 13 hospitaL Yvonne's son cared for Cecil during the daytime hours, and Yvonne and her daughter 14 would alternate being with Cecil during non-work hours, for four days per week and three days 15 per week, respectively. 16 D. Yvonne's Proner Legal Surname Is Cecil's Surname of "Davis." 17 22. Yvonne and Yvette's Social Security cards, obtained by Cecil and Vesser in their 18 childhoods, identify them as "Yvonne Davis" and "Yvette Davis." 19 23. Yvonne's United States passport identifies her legal name as "Yvonne Davis." 20 24. When Yvonne reached adulthood, she learned firsthand the difficulties Cecil 21 might have encountered if he had tried to formalize the adoption nearly twenty years before. In 22 the process of obtaining her passport, Yvonne sought her birth certificate from Hempstead 23 County, Arkansas; the Arkansas certificate showed her name as "Yvonne HilL" To prove that 24 Yvonne's proper name was "Yvonne Davis" as shown on her Social Security card, Yvonne's 25 aunt, Versie Williams, provided a notarized statement explaining that in her family's community 26 in the 1950s, and in the African American community generally at that time, formal adoption 27 was often thought to be unnecessary when forming a family by marrying a woman with infants: 28 it was clear to all that Yvonne and Yvette were Cecil's daughters. Ms. Williams signed this PETITION s statement under penalty of perjury, and the passport was issued with Yvonne's correct name of Davis. 25. When Yvonne obtained her. Department of Defense security clearance in 1972, the government accepted "Yvonne Davis" as Yvonne's proper name, listing "Yvonne Hill" as an alias. In short, even at the highest levels of government security, Yvonne is considered to be Cecil's daughter without question and as a matter of law. III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 26. Cecil died on December 9, 2017. At the time of his death he resided in the City ol Menlo Park, County of San Mateo, California. It is reasonable and appropriate to bring this 10 Petition before the above-named court. IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT 12 A. Petitioner Has Standinz to Brine This Petition. 13 27. Probate Code ) 6453 provides the means to establish that someone is a natural 14 parent for purposes of intestate succession. 15 28. Here, the presumptive and unrebutted parent-child relationship between father 16 Cecil Davis and daughters Yvonne and Yvette Davis is futther established under Family Code $ 17 7611(d). 18 29. Family Code $ 7630(b) provides that any interested party may bring an action at 19 any time for the purpose of determining the existence of the parent and child relationship 20 presumed under tj7611(d). 21 30. In the present Petition to Determine Heirship, Petitioner has an interest in 22 establishing Cecil as Yvonne and Yvette's father under tj 7611(d). 23 24 25 26 27 28 PETITION / B. Identitv of Persons Entitled to Notice 31. On information and belief, the name, age and address of each person entitled to notice is as follows: Name ~Ae Address Vanessa Faye Watkins Scates 63 431 Martin Luther King North Bastrop, LA 71220 Lemerel Davis 75 4182 Naff Avenue Bastrop, LA 71220 Tyrone Kentrell Davis 45 26594 Pegasus Way Morena Valley, CA 92555 10 TaiWanda Davis Diggs 39 14744 Washington Avenue, ¹136 San Leandro, CA 94578 12 Govey Davis, Jr. 79 2605 Southern Hill Boulevard, Apt. 23 Arlington, TX 76006 13 Thelma Jean Davis Wright 69 8613 Old Hickory Trail, ¹805 14 Dallas, TX 75237 15 Curtis Sherman Lee, Jr. 50 14501 Montfort Drive, ¹1073 16 Dallas, TX 75254 17 Kelvin Troy Davis 46 14501 Montfort Drive, ¹1023 18 Dallas, TX 79254 19 Glenda Fay Mays Jenkins 63 9159 Redwood Drive Bastrop, LA 71220 20 21 Vivian Mays Brown 35 9195 Cottonwood Drive Bastrop, LA 71220 22 Richmond Mays, Jr. 60 830 Robert Street 23 Bastrop, LA 71220 24 Janice Marie Mays Jones 56 830 Robert Street 25 Bastrop, LA 71220 26 Lee Earlis Mays 57 118 Haynie Avenue 27 Bastrop, LA 71220 28 PETITION '7 I Anthony De Wayne Mays 52 10166 Arkansas Street Bastrop, LA 71220 Cindy Lou Davis Morgan 58 2202 Scribner Street Stockton, CA 95206 4 Marlene Davis Pierce 58 3907 Finch Couit 5 Antioch, CA 94509 Calvin Davis 55 2300 D Street, ¹G Antioch, CA 94509 8 Lewis Anthony Davis 61 2428 Central Avenue 9 Alameda, CA 94501 Carrie Louise White Carlton 70 12334 Millrace Avenue Lynwood, CA 90262 Rose Marie Davis Brown 75 6805 Saddleback Drive Bakersfield, CA 93309 13 Doris Mae Robinson Fobbs 92 2710 Saint Andrew Street New Orleans, LA 70113 15 Roy Allen Davis 70 36658 Silk Oak Terrace Place 16 Murrieta, CA 92562 17 C. Cecil is Yvonne and Yvette's Natural Parent under Probate Code 8 6453. 19 1. Cecil's Parentage of Yvonne and Yvette is Established under g 6453(a. 20 32. Probate Code II 6453 provides the means to establish that someone is a natural 21 parent for purposes of intestate succession. Here, the parent-child relationship between Cecil, 22 Yvonne and Yvette, established under Family Code II7611, further establishes Cecil as Yvonne 23 and Yvette's natural parent under Probate Code 6453(a). I'I Section 6453 provides as follows, in 24 relevant part: 25 For the purpose of determining whether a person is a "natural parent" as that term is used in this chapter: 26 (a) A natural parent and child relationship is established where that relationship is 27 presumed and not rebutted pursuant to the Uniform Parentage Act (Part 3 (commencing 28 with Section 7600) of Division 12 of the Family Code). PETITION 33. Probate Code II6453(b)(2) further supports a finding of a parent-child relationship where, as here, "Parentage is established by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has openly held out the child as that parent's own." 2. Cecil, Yvonne and Yvette Have a Presumptive Parent and Child Relationship under Family Code II 7611(d). 34. The Probate Code determines heirship pursuant to the terms of Family Code $ 7611. Family Code II 7611 provides as follows, in relevant part: 7 A person is presumed to be the natural parent of a child if the person meets the conditions provided in Chapter I (commencing with Section 7540) or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 7570) of Part 2 or in any of the following subdivisions: ... 10 The (d) presumed parent receives the child into their home and openly holds out the child as their natural child. 12 35. Cecil was a constant paternal presence throughout Yvonne and Yvette's entire 13 lives. Cecil received Yvonne and Yvette into his home upon marrying their mother, and openly 14 held Yvonne and Yvette out as his natural children, giving them his family name, a loving home, 15 financial support, health care, and emotional support as his daughters, ensuring that they were 16 engaged in their education and involved in their extended family, neighborhood and church 17 communities. He always referred to and treated Yvonne and Yvette as his daughters in every 18 context of their lives, whether informal, such as attending family, church, or other community 19 events with them, or formal matters, such as applying for health care coverage for them or 20 registering them with the Social Security Administration and Department of Defense. 21 36. This strong parent and child bond endured into Yvonne and Yvette's adulthood, 22 as they in turn remained in close contact with Cecil as their father. Though Yvette's own 23 terminal illness prevented her caring for him up to the time of his death, Yvonne and her children 24 assumed a tremendous share of Cecil's care after Vesser died, devoting themselves to his care to 25 the end of his days in their roles as lus cluld and grandchildren. Cecil's fully developed, well- 26 established, unwavering, lifelong, demonstrated parental commitment to his daughters more than 27 satisfies the requirements of ) 7611(d). 28 PETITION 0 37. Further, Cecil never said nor did anything that would suggest that he was not Yvonne and Yvette's father. 38. In contrast, Yvonne and Yvette's biological father, Henry Hill of Arkansas, provided no care for the girls, had no contact with them while there were children„and saw them just twice as adults. He thus had very little contact with them over the course of their lives. 3. Cecil's Presumed Fatherhood under Family Code II 7611(d) Does Not Turn on His Being Yvonne and Yvette's Biological Father. 39. The Supreme Court of California has held that "a man does not lose his status as a presumed father by admitting he is not the biological father." In re Nicholas H (2002) 28 Cal.4th 10 56, 63. 40. In so holding, the court affirmed its earlier observations that "it is possible for a 12 man to achieve presumed father status, with its attendant rights and duties, without being the 13 biological father" (Nicholas H., supra, at 64, citing In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 450, 14 fn. 18), and that "even if paternity is denied and legally disproved, a man may be deemed, under 15 some circumstances, to be a 'presumed father' Nicholas H, supra, at 64, citing Adoption of 16 Kelsey S. (1992) 1 Ca1.4th 816, 823, fn. 3. 17 41. The court further approved of several California Court of Appeal cases holding 18 that a presumption of fatherhood arising under Family Code tj7611(d) is not automatically 19 rebutted by the man's admission that he is not the child's biological father (Nicholas H., supra, 20 at 64-69), and disapproved of a Court of Appeal holding that a man who was not a child' 21 biological father was precluded from establishing presumptive parenthood under Civil Code tj 22 7004 (now Family Code $ 7611(d)). Nicholas H, supra, at 67-68, criticizing In re Olivia H. 23 (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 325. 24 42. In a comprehensive analysis, the court emphasized that the established familial 25 relationship between a child and a man who satisfies the requirements of Family Code tj7611(d) 26 is much more important than a biological relationship of actual paternity, so that "the extant 27 father-child relationship is to be preserved at the cost of biological ties." Nicholas H., supra, at 28 65, reviewing cases. PETITION IA 43. As a California Court of Appeal explained most recently, "One can treat a person as one's parent, and be treated as a child in return, while acknowledging a different biological reality." ln re Alexander P. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 475, 495. 44. Here, Cecil Davis provided a loving home for Yvonne and Yvette and raised them as his children, whereas their biological father was absent and showed no interest in doing so. Accordingly, an admission that mere biological paternity is lacking would not rebut Cecil's status as their presumed father under tj7611(d). 4. The Constant, Enduring, and Loving Nature of Cecil's Paternal Relationship with Yvonne and Yvette More Than Satisfies the Requirements of g 7611(d). 10 45. A California Court of Appeal has found that a man who for only 20 months had performed the acts that established him as the child's presumed parent under $ 7611(d) had 12 performed them forasubstantial period of time. Alexander P., supra, at 498. Morerecently, 13 another California Court of Appeal observed that it is not "necessary for the person seeking 14 presumed parent status to have entered into the familial relationship from the time of conception 15 or birth." County of Orange v.Cole (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 504, 512. 16 46. The Alexander court even upheld the lower court's conclusion that a man had met 17 the requirements of IJ'611(d) despite his having committed acts of domestic violence against the 18 child's mother (Alexander P., supra, at 498), a circumstance which is absent here. 19 47. Here, Cecil Davis raised and named Yvonne and Yvette as his daughters and 20 cared for them from their infancy to older adulthood, treating them as his children for more than 21 sixty years, significantly exceeding the requirements of $ 7611(d). 22 5. There Is No Basis to Deny Presumed Parent Status to an Otherwise Qualified Stepparent. 23 24 48. The Alexander court explicitly rejected an argument that finding a stepparent to 25 be a presumed parent under )7611(d) would "circumvent'he purpose of stepparent adoption 26 statutes," holding that, "In the absence of an indication by the Legislature that adoption is 27 intended to be the exclusive means by which a stepparent is to be granted custodial status, we 28 PETITION find no basis for denying presumed parent status to otherwise qualified stepparents." Alexander P., supra, at 498, 498-99. 49. Here, Cecil has established a parent and child relationship with Yvonne and with Yvette under ( 7611(d). As the courts have made clear, he did not need to formally adopt them to do so. 6. Yvonne and Yvette Were Cecil's Natura!Children and Heirs. 50. As described herein, Cecil Davis received Yvonne and Yvette Davis into his home and openly held them out as his natural children. Yvonne, Aaron and Staci are therefore entitled to inherit as the natural child and grandchildren of Cecil Davis under Family Code ) 10 7611(d) and Probate Code $ 6453(a). D. Cecil Is Yvonne and Yvette's Eauitable Father Under Probate Code ti 6455 and the Doctrine of Eauitable Adontion. 12 1. There Is No Conflict between the Probate Code and the Judicial Doctrine ol 13 Equitable Adoption. 14 51. In the alternative, Yvonne, Aaron and Staci are entitled to inherit from Cecil 15 Davis by operation of the doctrine of equitable adoption, the application of which the Probate 16 Code explicitly recognizes. As California Probate Code $ 6455 makes clear, "Nothing in this 17 chapter affects or limits application of the judicial doctrine of equitable adoption for the benefit 18 of the child or the child's issue." Here, the judicial doctrine of equitable adoption should be 19 applied for the benefit of Yvonne Davis as the surviving daughter of Cecil Davis, and for the 20 benefit of Aaron Clark and Staci Clark as the issue of Yvette Davis, Cecil's deceased daughter. 21 2. Under the Clear Criteria Articulated by the California Supreme Court, Cecil Davis Equitably Adopted Yvonne and Yvette Davis. 22 23 52. In Estate of Ford (32 Cal. 4th 160 (2004)), the California Supreme Court set forth the criteria for equitable adoption: 24 [E]quitable adoption requires some form of agreement to adopt, 25 coupled with subsequent objective conduct indicating mutual 26 recognition of an adoptive parent and child relationship to such an extent that in equity and good conscience an adoption should be 27 deemed to have taken place. 28 Ford, supra, at 168 (quoting Estate ofBauer (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 554, 560). PETITION io a. Cecil Davis Satisfied the First Prong for Equitable Adoption 53. As to the first criterion, the court provided that the existence of some direct expression by the decedent oflus intent to adopt may be demonstrated not only by proof of his express promise to adopt, but also by proof of other acts or statements directly showing that the decedent intended the child to be, or to be treated as, a legally adopted child, such as an invalid or unconsummated attempt to adopt, the decedent's statement of his or her intent to adopt the child, or the decedent's representation to the claimant or to the community at large that the claimant was the decedent's natural or legally adopted child. 10 Ford, supra, at 171. 54. Here, there is overwhelming proof of Cecil's actions and statements directly 12 showing that he intended Yvonne and Yvette to be treated as his own natural children, and a 13 fortiori, as his legally adopted children, including his statements that he considered them to be 14 his own daughters, as well as his countless representations consistently over his life with Yvoiuie 15 and Yvette, both to them and to the community at large, that Yvonne and Yvette were his natural 16 children. 17 55. In its analysis of this first prong of equitable adoption, the Ford court noted that 18 although the claimant had a close and enduring familial relationship with the decedent parents, 19 evidence satisfying the first prong was "totally lacking" in that "they neither held Bean out to the 20 world as their natural or adopted child (Bean, for example, did not take the Ford name) nor 21 represented to Bean that he was their child." Ford, supra, at 173. Here, in contrast, Cecil not 22 only shared a close and enduring familial relationship with Yvonne and Yvette, but along with 23 other indicia of his fulfilled, implied promise to adopt them, he also held them out to the world as 24 his natural children, gave them his family name, and represented to them and to all, including all 25 government agencies and other entities, that they were his children. Under Ford, Cecil Davis has 26 satisfied the first prong of his equitable adoption of Yvonne and Yvette Davis. 27 28 PETITION i'l b. Cecil Davis Satisfied the Second Prong for Equitable Adoption. 56. As to the second criterion, the court noted the distillation by the Ninth Circuit of several factors tending to show the required mutual recognition, noting that these factors are merely examples of the kind of conduct that demonstrates an adoptive parent and child relationship, so that it need not be shown that every factor is satisfied: [T]he adoptee lived with the adoptive parent for a number of years; the adoptee assumed the adoptive parent's surname; the adoptive parent told the adoptee that he or she was adopted; the adoptive parent publicly acknowledged the adoptee as his or her child; the adoptee considered and conducted himself or herself as a natural child; the adoptee worked or performed services for the adoptive parent; and the adoptive parent attempted legally to adopt or 10 obtained guardianship papers for the child. Ford supra, at 168-69 (quoting Mingo v. Heckler (9th Cir.1984) 745 F,2d 537, 538-40). 12 57. Here, Yvonne and Yvette lived with Cecil from infancy to adulthood, assmned 13 Cecil's surname, considered and conducted themselves as his natural children for more than sixty 14 years, and worked or performed services for him as helpful, caregiving children. In turn, Cecil 15 told Yvonne and Yvette that they were his own daughters, and he regarded them and treated 16 them simply as his children. Cecil publicly acknowledged Yvonne and Yvette as his own, 17 natural children, so that the question of whether he was their biological father and whether he had formally adopted them never arose in any public context. That Cecil apparently did not 19 further attempt to legally adopt or obtain guardianship papers for them simply reaffums his 20 belief that these formalities were unnecessary, because it was clear to all, even the relevant legal 21 authorities for identification and benefits, that they were Cecil's own daughters. Under Ford, 22 Cecil Davis has satisfied the second prong of his equitable adoption of Yvonne and Yvette 23 Davis. 24 58. The record presented here shows by clear and convincing evidence that Yvonne 25 and Yvette are Cecil's equitably adopted daughters. Under Ford, Cecil Davis has satisfied the 26 criteria for his equitable adoption of Yvonne and Yvette Davis. 27 28 PETITION ia c. Persuasive Authority Further Establishes the Equitable Adoption of Yvonne and Yvette Davis by Cecil Davis. 59. Courts in other jurisdictions have also relied on the Ford case in support of the doctrine of equitable adoption. In the case of In re Estate of North Ford (2019) 200 A.3d 1207, 1214, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals looked to Ford as an example of California's goal of promoting fairness and honoring the intent of a decedent to treat a child "as if the child were the decedent's own," and aligned itself with this "focus on the decedent's intent and examination of whether the claimant was functionally the decedent's child" (North Ford, supra, at 1214). The court concluded as follows: 10 At a minimum, the putative child must prove that, as a minor, the decedent gave him a permanent home. Further, the court should consider the particular facts regarding the nature of the decedent's relationship with the putative child, including but not limited to 12 whether the decedent cared for the putative child (i.e., took charge 13 of his health, education, and general welfare) until he reached the age of majority, as a parent would; whether the putative child was 14 incorporated into the decedent's broader family; whether the decedent gave the putative child her surname; and whether the 15 decedent held herself out to others in the community as a parent to the putative child. The court may also consider whether the 16 putative child continued to maintain a relationship with his 17 biological family and if so, if that relationship was inconsistent with the decedent assuming the role of parent to the putative child. 18 North Ford, supra, at 1215. 19 60. In North Ford, the court favorably characterized as similar the additional standard 20 "that an individual seeking to inherit as an 'equitably adopted child'ust prove 'that he has 21 stood from an age of tender years in a position [e]xactly equivalent to a formally adopted 22 child[.]'" North Ford, supra, at 1214, citing II heeling Dollar Sav. ck Tr, Co. v. Singer, 250 23 S.E.2d 369, 373 The court saw no inconsistency between: (1978). (I) inheritance by a child 24 related to a decedent genetically or by legal adoption under the intestacy statutes, and (2) 25 inheritance by a child "not genetically related or legally adopted but in all respects functionally 26 [the decedent's] child to be considered an heir" under the intestacy statutes as a matter of equity: 27 "To the contrary, in such cases, the statutory and equitable objectives to ensure fairness and 28 fulfill societal expectations are the same." North Ford, supra, at 1213. PETITION 1C 61. The court in Norrh Ford further reflected on the legal and societal norms that prevailed at the time and place that the petitioner therein was equitably adopted into the decedent's family: "Certainly, the facts proffered by Mr. North-Bey to the trial court suggest a very different era, where parent-child relationships could have formed extralegally." North Ford, supra, at 1215. In this case as well, on information