Edgar R. v. Superior Court CA5
F082629
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 16, 2021Background
- Newborn Fabian was removed at birth after mother tested positive for methamphetamine; Fabian placed in foster care.
- Mother identified Edgar as the father; Edgar did not sign the birth certificate or a declaration of paternity and initially was unlocated.
- The Fresno County Department of Social Services conducted searches and sent notices; Edgar was later found in county jail and filed a JV-505 claiming parentage.
- At the April 7, 2021 hearing Edgar sought elevation to presumed father status, a continuance, paternity testing, and reunification services; the juvenile court denied the continuance, JV-505, and reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
- Edgar petitioned for extraordinary writ arguing defective notice, denial of due process, error in not finding him a presumed father, and abuse of discretion in denying a continuance; the Court of Appeal denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Edgar) | Defendant's Argument (County/Juvenile Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of notice / due process | Edgar received untimely notice of combined jurisdictional/dispositional hearing and was denied due process | Department used due diligence to locate Edgar and provided required notice once located; any defect was harmless | Court: substantial evidence supports due diligence; no reversible due process violation (any delay was not prejudicial) |
| Presumed father status | Edgar held Fabian out as his child, provided baby items, intended to sign declaration/birth certificate, so should be presumed father | Edgar did not meet Family Code presumptions or Kelsey S. standard (no receipt into home, no demonstrated financial/legal assumption of parental responsibility) | Court: Edgar is not a presumed father; no error in court’s determination |
| Denial of continuance to develop parentage evidence | Edgar requested short continuance to present witness evidence and elevate status before disposition | Dependency law favors prompt resolutions; court had sufficient evidence and denying continuance served child’s interest in stability | Majority: denial not an abuse of discretion; Concurrence: denying the continuance was an abuse but harmless on the record |
| Reunification services for biological father | Edgar argued he should receive reunification if paternity proved or given more time | A biological father is not entitled to reunification absent presumed status; services only if beneficial to child | Court: denial of reunification services was proper; no demonstrated benefit to child from services to Edgar |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Claudia S., 131 Cal.App.4th 236 (2005) (due-process notice requirement for parents in dependency proceedings)
- In re P.A., 198 Cal.App.4th 974 (2011) (distinction between biological, presumed, and alleged fathers)
- In re Zacharia D., 6 Cal.4th 435 (1993) (biological fathers not automatically entitled to custody or reunification)
- In re Paul H., 111 Cal.App.4th 753 (2003) (alleged fathers need only notice and opportunity to attempt to change paternity status)
- Adoption of Kelsey S., 1 Cal.4th 816 (1992) (constitutional paternity rights for unwed biological fathers who promptly assume full parental responsibilities)
- In re Jesusa V., 32 Cal.4th 588 (2004) (juvenile court duty to determine parentage)
- In re Arlyne A., 85 Cal.App.4th 591 (2000) (scope of reasonable search efforts to locate absent parents)
- Tonya M. v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 836 (2007) (dependency scheme emphasizes speedy resolution for children)