In re U.N. CA1/3, A147251

July 2015: San Francisco Human Services Agency filed a dependency petition after Mother was observed roughly handling three-year-old U.N.; children detained and U.N. placed in foster care.
M.M. was identified as U.N.’s alleged biological father; he was not on the birth certificate, had not signed a declaration of paternity, lived apart, and had minimal contact with the child.
M.M. produced a DNA report (probability 99.99%) and a Merced County judgment ordering him to pay child support based on paternity tests; he failed to file a motion to elevate his status or to appear at several hearings and arrived very late to the jurisdiction/disposition hearing.
The juvenile court sustained allegations (including M.M.’s criminal history), removed U.N. from Mother, and ordered reunification services for Mother but not for M.M.
M.M. sought biological-father status at the hearing; the court declined to consider paternity elevation because it was not timely raised or briefed.
The Agency served ICWA notices to BIA and tribes, but the notices omitted identifying information about M.M.’s alleged relative (great-grandmother Carmen L.); the Agency conceded ICWA notice/inquiry error and the court remanded for compliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred in denying M.M. biological-father status	Agency: Paternity was not properly before the court; even if biological status were found, reunification services are discretionary and were not warranted	M.M.: DNA proof (99.99%) and prior child-support judgment establish biological paternity and justify elevation so he could seek services/placement	Any error in not elevating M.M. to biological father status was harmless; record shows no likelihood reunification services would benefit the child, given lack of relationship and extensive criminal history
Whether Agency complied with ICWA notice/inquiry requirements	Agency initially attempted notice but failed to include sufficient family identifying information; concedes error	M.M.: Agency did not fully interview him or relatives nor include extended-family details in notices, so tribes could not meaningfully verify eligibility	Notices were inadequate under ICWA; matter remanded for the juvenile court to order full ICWA inquiry and proper notice; prior orders otherwise affirmed

In re Kobe A., 146 Cal.App.4th 1113 (summary treatment of alleged father rights and harmless-error analysis)
In re Zacharia D., 6 Cal.4th 435 (distinguishing presumed, biological, and alleged fathers)
In re Sabrina H., 217 Cal.App.3d 702 (purpose of father-status categories)
In re Jerry P., 95 Cal.App.4th 793 (presumed father status ranks highest)
In re T.R., 132 Cal.App.4th 1202 (presumed-father entitlements to counsel and services)
In re Christopher M., 113 Cal.App.4th 155 (biological fathers have fewer dependency rights than presumed fathers)
Adoption of Kelsey S., 1 Cal.4th 816 (legislative intent on biological fathers' limited rights)
In re Cheyanne F., 164 Cal.App.4th 571 (ICWA notice must include parents, grandparents, great-grandparents information)
In re S.E., 217 Cal.App.4th 610 (notice must permit tribe meaningful review of membership eligibility)
In re Christian P., 208 Cal.App.4th 437 (remand for ICWA compliance while affirming underlying orders)
In re Veronica G., 157 Cal.App.4th 179 (same)