Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Tyrone M.
198 Cal. App. 4th 635
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- In July 2010, DCFS detained two-year-old J.H. and his eight-month-old brother amid domestic violence, and mother’s drug use and mental health problems.
- Tyrone M. sought to be J.H.’s presumed father by filing a JV-505 and presenting evidence; mother identified Tyrone M. as the father but said he was not present at birth, while George H. appeared on the birth certificate.
- DCFS conducted a prerelease investigation noting Tyrone M.’s past drugs and a 1996 rape conviction requiring sex-offender registration; DCFS recommended reunification services for Tyrone M., with restrictions due to criminal history.
- At hearings, Tyrone M. requested DNA testing; initially denied, then a November 2010 parentage hearing occurred where the court found George H. to be the presumed father and labeled Tyrone M. as an alleged biological father.
- The court’s paternity ruling as to Tyrone M. was deemed incomplete because it did not determine biological paternity under Rule 5.635; the order was affirmed only insofar as Tyrone M. was not the presumed father and remanded for proper biological-paternity determination.
- Tyrone M. timely appealed the ruling; the court remanded to determine biological paternity and noted Tyrone M. may pursue a section 388 petition if new evidence or changed circumstances arise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tyrone M. was denied due process to raise paternity status | Tyrone M. sought presumptive status and had notice/hearings | Court complied with §316.2 and Rule 5.635; allowed opportunity | No due-process denial; Tyrone M. had notice and a hearing. |
| Whether Tyrone M. should have been determined to be the biological father | Tyrone M. argued for a paternity determination | Court did not determine biological paternity | Remanded to determine Tyrone M.’s biological paternity. |
| Whether the court properly found George H. as the presumed father | N/A (Tyrone M. as alleged father challenges presumption) | Evidence supported George H.’s status under §7611(d) | Substantial evidence supported the presumed-father finding for George H. |
| Whether paternity testing should have been ordered | Court should order testing to determine biological paternity | Rule 5.635 allows either testing or evidence-based determination | Court was required to determine biological paternity; remanded for proper determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.O., 178 Cal.App.4th 139 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2009) (defines biological vs. presumed father categories; presumption hierarchy)
- In re Zacharia D., 6 Cal.4th 435 (Cal. 1993) (explains presumed father criteria under §7611(d))
- In re Joseph G., 83 Cal.App.4th 712 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (alleged biological father defined; notice rights)
- In re Kobe A., 146 Cal.App.4th 1113 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (due-process notice and opportunity to participate under §316.2)
- In re Paul H., 111 Cal.App.4th 753 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (alleged father has notice and a hearing rights; procedures for parentage)
- In re Melinda J., 234 Cal.App.3d 1413 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1991) (due process—notice and hearing for alleged fathers)
- In re Baby Boy V., 140 Cal.App.4th 1108 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (mandatory determination of biological paternity when requested)
- In re Vincent M., 161 Cal.App.4th 943 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (court’s duty to determine biological parentage upon request)
- In re Joshua R., 104 Cal.App.4th 1020 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2002) (relevance of paternity testing when presumed status may not be established)
- In re A.A., 114 Cal.App.4th 771 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (timeliness of actions seeking custody following paternity)
- In re Sarah C., 8 Cal.App.4th 964 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1992) (acknowledgment and public declaration of paternity factors)
- In re Elijah V., 127 Cal.App.4th 576 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (biological father vs. presumed father considerations in reunification)
- Jesusa V., 32 Cal.4th 583 (Cal. 2004) (presumed-father determinations and custody implications)
- Kelsey S., 1 Cal.4th 816 (Cal. 1992) (framework for parental responsibilities and custody decisions)