In re Y.T. CA4/2, E076847

Father had a single sexual encounter with mother (child born 2012); he was not on the birth certificate and initially did not know of the child.
Child removed from mother for substance abuse; dependency proceedings began in 2017. CFS contacted father’s sister in 2016; father submitted a DNA sample through child‑support channels in December 2016 and paternity was confirmed in February 2018.
Notices (including JV‑505) were mailed in 2017, but the record is unclear whether they were sent by certified mail as required; father contends he never received the JV‑505 or adequate court notice.
Father first appeared in juvenile court on November 29, 2018 (12‑month review), expressed a desire to be elevated from alleged to presumed (Kelsey S.) father; the court said a section 388 petition was required—but counsel never filed a 388 petition or sought a continuance.
Reunification services were terminated and the court terminated father’s parental rights at a section 366.26 hearing (Dec. 14, 2020). Father petitioned for habeas corpus and appealed.
The Court of Appeal granted habeas relief, finding counsel’s failure to pursue Kelsey S. relief or seek a continuance prejudiced father; it vacated the termination, ordered a new dispositional hearing for father only, appointed new counsel, and referred the prior counsel’s firm to the State Bar.

Issue	Father’s Argument	CFS/Respondent’s Argument	Held
Was counsel ineffective for failing to seek Kelsey S. status or request a continuance at the 12‑month review?	Counsel failed to file a section 388 petition or ask for more time to establish Kelsey S. status, denying father a reasonable opportunity to preserve parental rights.	Father would not have qualified as a Kelsey S. father (he delayed in contacting social services and was passive during proceedings).	Court: Counsel was ineffective; prejudice shown because competent counsel likely could have preserved father’s opportunity to qualify as a Kelsey S. father. Judgment vacated and new dispositional hearing ordered.
Was statutory notice (JV‑505/certified mail) and related procedure adequate, and did father’s alleged delay bar relief?	Father says he never received the JV‑505 certified‑mail notice and counsel failed to verify or remedy lack of notice; this procedural lapse prevented timely pursuit of presumed status.	CFS asserts forms were mailed and father delayed after learning paternity, so he cannot claim promptness to obtain Kelsey S. status.	Court: Record is ambiguous about certified mailing; CFS’s factual assertions do not negate the prejudice from counsel’s failures. Father’s claim stands; court remanded for opportunity to establish presumed/Kelsey S. status.

Adoption of Kelsey S., 1 Cal.4th 816 (1992) (an unwed biological father who promptly comes forward but is prevented by mother/third‑party conduct may obtain Kelsey S. status equivalent to presumed parent)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective‑assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
In re A.R., 11 Cal.5th 234 (2021) (importance of procedural protections and counsel in dependency terminations)
In re O.S., 102 Cal.App.4th 1402 (2002) (dependency law: time is of the essence; review of prejudice standard)
In re J.W.-P., 54 Cal.App.5th 298 (2020) (distinctions among alleged, biological, and presumed fathers and related rights)
In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (1993) (shift in focus after reunification services are terminated centers on child’s need for permanency)