Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. R.P.
140 Cal. Rptr. 3d 881
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- R.P., alleged father, requested genetic testing to determine paternity in B.C. dependency proceedings; testing was authorized but he was ordered to pay for it and no paternity determination was made.
- B.C. was detained in July 2009 after mother left him with a friend; mother identified R.P. as the father but had no contact or locating information for him.
- During 2010, reunification services for mother were terminated and B.C. was placed for potential adoption with Mr. F.; Mr. E. was providing care and potential adoption considerations.
- R.P. appeared at the permanency planning hearing in January 2011, filed a JV-505 Statement Regarding Parentage in May 2011, and sought genetic testing to determine biological paternity.
- The juvenile court authorized testing but did not determine biological paternity, and ordered R.P. to pay for the testing; the court did not fulfill Rule 5.635(h) mandatory paternity determination.
- The court of appeal reversed and remanded for a determination of biological paternity under Rule 5.635.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court must determine biological paternity. | R.P. argues for mandatory paternity determination upon JV-505. | Department contends paternity relevance is limited given adoption plans and child’s age. | Yes; mandatory paternity determination required. |
| Who pays for paternity testing when testing is required. | R.P. sought testing; the order to pay should be reconsidered given the mandatory determination. | Department reasoned cost allocation was appropriate under existing order. | Remand for paternity determination; do not affirm or deny payment issue here. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Baby Boy V., 140 Cal.App.4th 1108 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd) (mandatory paternity determination when JV-505 filed)
- In re J.H., 198 Cal.App.4th 635 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd) (presumed father finding does not negate biological paternity inquiry)
- In re Joshua R., 104 Cal.App.4th 1020 (Cal. App. Dist. 4th) (paternity irrelevant if no ongoing benefit from services; supports analysis of necessity of paternity determination)
- In re Vincent M., 161 Cal.App.4th 943 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd) (reaffirms obligation to determine biological paternity in dependency cases)
- In re D.R., 193 Cal.App.4th 1494 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd) (de novo review for discretionary issues; relevance to paternity petitions)