Alameda County Social Services Agency v. T.B.
215 Cal. App. 4th 1
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- T.G. was born positive for cocaine and removed from mother; father TB was not married to mother but later deemed presumed father.
- Juvenile court terminated parental rights of both parents under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, prompting father to appeal on due process grounds.
- Statutory framework distinguishes alleged, biological, and presumed fathers; presumed fathers have greater rights and may seek custody with potential reunification services.
- Paternity testing was requested by father; court initially did not order testing due to cost/ability-to-pay concerns, and reunification services were bypassed for mother.
- Father was later declared T.G.’s presumed father (Nov 2009) after paternity testing; he pursued custody and attended hearings; guardianship and eventual adoption remained contested.
- At the 366.26 phase, the court terminated father’s parental rights without a explicit finding that placement with him would be detrimental, prompting the constitutional challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does termination without a detriment finding violate due process for a presumed father? | Father argues due process requires clear and convincing detriment finding. | Agency contends best interests suffice for termination absent explicit detriment finding. | Reversed; requires explicit detriment finding for presumed father |
| Was the issue forfeited or can it be reviewed due to constitutionality? | Issue should be reviewed despite forfeiture because of fundamental rights. | Forfeiture applies, but court may excusing it for important legal issue. | Excused; reviewing de novo due process issue |
| Was there any implied or explicit finding of detriment supported by the record for father? | Record shows father sought custody and had visitation, implying potential detriment if not placed with him. | No explicit or implied clear-and-convincing detriment finding; prior dispositional findings addressed mother only. | No supported detriment finding; reversal ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 242 (Cal. 1993) (due process at 366.26 hearing; safeguards; multiple prior findings of unfitness)
- In re Zacharia D., 6 Cal.4th 435 (Cal. 1993) (presumed father vs. biological father; custody rights timing)
- Adoption of Kelsey S., 1 Cal.4th 816 (Cal. 1992) (presumed father status; detriment standard applicability)
- In re J.L., 159 Cal.App.4th 1010 (Cal. App. 2008) (presumed father status based on relationship, not biology)
- In re Gladys L., 141 Cal.App.4th 845 (Cal. App. 2006) (necessity of detriment finding for termination of parental rights of noncustodial parent)
- In re Frank R., 192 Cal.App.4th 532 (Cal. App. 2011) (reiteration that detriment finding must be explicit for noncustodial parent)