Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. E.C.
200 Cal. Rptr. 3d 93
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- In Nov 2014 DCFS removed 4-year-old H.R. (and half sister) from mother L.R.’s custody after reports of domestic violence, child abuse, alcohol use, and parental neglect.
- Mother initially refused to identify H.R.’s father, later provided a name and a parentage questionnaire indicating the man was not present at birth and had not held out the child; no paternity test had been done.
- DCFS located the alleged father (E.C.) through family contacts; he had an extensive criminal history, admitted past drug use, had inconsistent statements about paternity, and was deported to El Salvador before submitting DNA.
- Juvenile court found E.C. to be an alleged father (not a biological or presumed father), sustained an allegation under Welf. & Inst. Code § 300(g) that he failed to provide necessities, denied reunification services, but ordered DCFS to attempt DNA testing in El Salvador and allowed monitored contacts.
- E.C. appealed, arguing the court erred by (1) refusing to designate him biological father, (2) denying reunification services, and (3) sustaining jurisdiction based on his failure to provide support as an alleged father.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCFS) | Defendant's Argument (E.C.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by finding E.C. only an alleged father (not biological) | Court may await genetic testing and resolve conflicting evidence; substantial evidence supports treating him as alleged father | E.C. argued he is biological father and court should elevate his status | Affirmed: substantial evidence supported alleged-father finding; court did not abuse discretion in awaiting DNA result |
| Whether E.C. was entitled to reunification services | Reunification services discretionary for biological fathers; not required for alleged fathers | E.C. argued denial erroneous because he claims biological status | Affirmed: denial proper because court reasonably treated him as alleged father; no showing he was entitled as biological father |
| Whether court could sustain §300(g) jurisdictional finding for failure to provide support against an alleged father | Jurisdiction may be based on conduct of either parent; alleged father still may become biological so can be held to responsibilities | E.C. argued an alleged father lacks status that permits sustaining §300(g) allegation | Affirmed: sustaining allegation permissible; alleged father status does not immunize him from jurisdictional findings, particularly where he sought to remain involved and possibly prove paternity |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.P., 240 Cal.App.4th 689 (2015) (distinguishes alleged, biological, and presumed father statuses in dependency proceedings)
- In re Kobe A., 146 Cal.App.4th 1113 (2007) (alleged fathers have limited rights; reunification discretionary for biological fathers)
- In re Cheyenne B., 203 Cal.App.4th 1361 (2012) (review of parentage determination is for substantial evidence)
- S.Y. v. S.B., 201 Cal.App.4th 1023 (2011) (standards for parentage determinations in dependency cases)
- In re Alexis E., 171 Cal.App.4th 438 (2009) (appellate review limits—do not reweigh evidence)
- In re O.S., 102 Cal.App.4th 1402 (2002) (alleged father lacks current interest entitling him to reunification or custody)
- In re I.A., 201 Cal.App.4th 1484 (2011) (dependency jurisdiction can be premised on actions of one parent)
- In re Alysha S., 51 Cal.App.4th 393 (1996) (dependency purpose is child protection; court may base jurisdiction on either parent)