In re C.S. CA4/2, E076571

Background

Child born July 2019 tested positive for methamphetamine; mother identified no father on the birth certificate and did not reunify.
CFS filed dependency; mother failed to engage in services and reunification was terminated; a section 366.26 termination hearing was set for January 2021.
P.R. (appellant/father) first appeared Sept 2020, said he might be the father; counsel was appointed and paternity testing ordered; father reported difficulty obtaining the out-of-state test.
January 2021 hearing was continued to allow testing after father testified he had attempted to arrange testing and had contacted the case manager; the court expressed skepticism and referenced Kelsey S. standards.
The day before the February 2021 366.26 hearing, CFS filed a paternity result showing 99.99% probability; father requested a continuance to pursue presumed-father status and custody, which the juvenile court denied and then terminated parental rights.
On appeal the court asked for supplemental briefing on the continuance issue and concluded the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying the continuance based on a misreading of Kelsey S.; the termination is conditionally reversed and remanded for a limited hearing on presumed-father status.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to give statutory notice under Welf. & Inst. Code §316.2 requires reversal	CFS implied any notice issue did not warrant reversal or was not outcome-determinative	Father argued he never received required §316.2 notice and that warranted reversal	Appellate court did not resolve §316.2 claim on the merits; instead conditionally reversed based on continuance error and remanded for further proceedings to determine father’s status
Whether juvenile court abused its discretion by denying father’s continuance request at the 366.26 hearing	CFS and juvenile court argued delay would harm child’s stability, father was unlikely a Kelsey S. father, and continuance would unfairly disrupt placement	Father argued he needed short continuance to develop evidence after paternity results (filed the day before) to show presumed-father status and seek custody/reunification	Denial was an abuse of discretion: court misapplied Kelsey S.; remanded for limited hearing to determine presumed-father status or other relief; if not presumed, termination is reinstated
Whether father meets Kelsey S. presumed-father standard	CFS argued existing record did not show father promptly assumed parental responsibilities	Father pointed to post-birth efforts (contacting relatives and case manager, appearing in court, attempting testing, traveling from Arizona) as evidence of willingness to assume custody	Not decided on appeal; appellate court remanded for the juvenile court to develop the record and determine whether father meets Kelsey S.

Key Cases Cited

Adoption of Kelsey S., 1 Cal.4th 816 (1992) (establishes due process standard protecting biological fathers who promptly demonstrate full commitment to parental responsibilities)
In re Zacharia D., 6 Cal.4th 435 (1993) (applies Kelsey S. to deny presumed-father protections where father’s conduct showed lack of prompt commitment)
People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.), 43 Cal.4th 737 (2008) (explains that a decision resting on an error of law is an abuse of discretion)
In re Emily D., 234 Cal.App.4th 438 (2015) (reviews continuance standard in dependency proceedings)
In re G.S.R., 159 Cal.App.4th 1202 (2008) (reversing dependency proceedings where procedural error affected termination of parental rights)
In re D.S., 230 Cal.App.4th 1238 (2014) (notes extension of Kelsey S. principles in dependency context)