San Bernardino County Children & Family Services v. O.F.
240 Cal. App. 4th 689
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- D.P., born 2013, was removed at birth after testing positive for methamphetamine; placed with maternal grandparents who sought to adopt.
- Father (O.F.) had criminal history and was incarcerated in federal prison from July 2012 through much of the proceedings; whereabouts briefly unknown at times.
- Father filed a JV-505 stating he didn’t know if he was D.P.’s father and requested DNA/paternity testing; mother had named him as the father but the birth certificate listed no father.
- Hospital records indicated D.P. was born prematurely and was likely conceived after father’s incarceration in July 2012.
- Juvenile court denied reunification services to father, treated him as an alleged father, refused to order paternity testing, and ultimately terminated parental rights at the section 366.26 hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCFS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused discretion by denying paternity testing | Court satisfied inquiry duties; evidence showed father could not be biological father | Denial prevented him from proving parentage, obtaining presumed-father status, reunification, and custody | Court affirmed: no abuse; evidence (incarceration timing, hospital record) supported denial |
| Whether father should have been treated as a presumed or biological father | DCFS: no basis for presumed/biological status given lack of statutory factors and incarceration | Father: JV-505 request for testing should have been granted to establish status | Held father was only an alleged father; no evidence supported presumed/biological status |
| Whether denial of testing violated father’s due process rights | DCFS: procedural safeguards satisfied (notice, JV-505 filed, opportunity to be heard) | Father: testing necessary to meaningfully contest dependency and seek reunification | Held due process satisfied; court properly relied on available evidence to deny testing |
| Whether juveniles’ placement and adoption plan required consideration of father’s relatives | DCFS: maternal grandparents were appropriate; father’s relatives not shown to be viable | Father: testing might have opened placement/reunification options via paternal relatives | Held no error: without paternity or presumed status, father’s relatives not entitled to placement consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Paul H., 111 Cal.App.4th 753 (discusses distinctions among alleged, biological, and presumed fathers and limited rights of alleged fathers)
- In re B.C., 205 Cal.App.4th 1306 (juvenile court must meaningfully act on alleged father’s request for paternity testing; conditioning testing on payment was error)