In re A.N. CA1/3, A147351

July 2015: San Francisco Human Services Agency filed a dependency petition after Mother was arrested for intoxication and her older child suffered visible injuries; A.N. (infant) taken into protective custody.
Mother identified S.V. as A.N.’s father; S.V. lived with Mother and the children for about five to six weeks in June–July 2015, bought some supplies, and took the infant on outings and to visit relatives.
DNA testing later established S.V. as A.N.’s biological father; he sought presumed-father status and custody, filing a JV‑505 and later a Family Code §7611(d) motion claiming he received A.N. into his home and openly held her out as his child.
At the November 4, 2015 jurisdiction/disposition hearing the juvenile court declined to rule on S.V.’s presumed‑father status (saying the issue was not before it in motion form) and found S.V. was not entitled to reunification services.
S.V. moved for presumed‑father status in December 2015; the juvenile court denied the motion in January 2016. S.V. appealed claiming (1) error in not ruling at the jurisdiction/disposition hearing and (2) insufficiency of evidence to deny presumed‑father status.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court erred by declining to rule on paternity/presumed‑father status at the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing	Agency: any trial‑stage declination was not reversible error because the court later ruled and denial would have been the same	S.V.: court should have adjudicated presumed‑father status at that hearing, affording him full protections then	Court: any error was harmless; no prejudice because the outcome (denial) would have been the same
Whether substantial evidence supports denial of presumed‑father status under Fam. Code §7611(d) (receiving child into home and openly holding out)	Agency: S.V.’s short cohabitation, limited financial/legal steps, failure to protect children or promptly assert paternity shows lack of full parental commitment	S.V.: lived with family, cared for child, spent money, told relatives, sought to establish paternity and wanted custody	Court: substantial evidence supports denial—S.V.’s acts (5–6 weeks’ care, small purchases, visits, telling relatives) were insufficient to show an abiding commitment or prompt legal steps; failure to protect children or pursue paternity weighs against presumed status

In re Kobe A., 146 Cal.App.4th 1113 (court distinguishes presumed/biological/alleged fathers)
In re Zacharia D., 6 Cal.4th 435 (explaining categories of fatherhood in dependency law)
In re Sabrina H., 217 Cal.App.3d 702 (distinguishing fathers who have entered familial relationship)
In re Jerry P., 95 Cal.App.4th 793 (describing presumed father rights and required commitment)
In re T.R., 132 Cal.App.4th 1202 (factors for §7611(d) analysis)
In re Christopher M., 113 Cal.App.4th 155 (biological fathers’ lesser entitlement to services)
Adoption of Kelsey S., 1 Cal.4th 816 (Kelsey S. doctrine: relief when mother/third party prevented assertion of rights)
In re Sarah C., 8 Cal.App.4th 964 (presumed father’s rights derive from relationship/commitment)
R.M. v. T.A., 233 Cal.App.4th 760 (policy protecting developed parent‑child relationships)
In re D.M., 210 Cal.App.4th 541 (presumed father must show abiding commitment)
In re Spencer W., 48 Cal.App.4th 1647 (living with child and caretaking insufficient without legal steps to establish paternity)
Martinez v. Vaziri, 246 Cal.App.4th 373 (focus on parent‑child relationship and commitment)