Whether California's Family Code § 7611(d) is impermissibly vague, as applied, when the Court of Appeal holds there are no specific factors that a trial court must consider before it determines that a parent has 'received' a child into the home, and thereby affirms a trial court's deprivation of an unmarried father's protected liberty interest in continuing to raise his biological daughter

QUESTIONS PRESENTED A father’s right to parent his own child is a protected liberty interest. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972). A father’s interest in retaining custody of his child is cognizable and substantial. Ibid. California’s Uniform Parentage Act, Family Code § 7611(d), is the statutory mechanism for determining the existence of an unmarried father’s paternity. It requires proof of two elements: (1) that the alleged father received the child into his home and (2) openly held the child out as his own natural child. The questions presented are: 1. Whether California’s Family Code § 7611(d) is impermissibly vague, as applied, when the Court of Appeal holds “[t]here are no specific factors that a trial court must consider before it determines that a parent has ‘received’ a child into the home[,]” and thereby affirms a trial court’s deprivation of an unmarried father’s protected liberty interest in continuing to raise his biological daughter. 2. Whether California’s Uniform Parentage Act exceeds constitutional limits in violation of procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection, when it operates to deprive an unmarried biological father of the substantial bond he developed with his daughter, whom he raised for the first five years of her life.