San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. D.Z. (In re L.L.)
13 Cal. App. 5th 1302
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- L.L., born 2006, was removed from Mother's custody in 2016 after Mother's arrest; T.L. was the man who raised and parented L.L. and was listed on her birth certificate.
- B.S. is L.L.'s biological father (confirmed by genetic testing) who had earlier obtained a 2007 family-court order awarding him joint legal custody and visitation; his contact with L.L. ceased after he was incarcerated in 2011.
- Juvenile court initially treated B.S. as an alleged father, ordered genetic testing, and later amended the petition when paternity was confirmed.
- On January 23, 2017, the juvenile court found B.S. a presumed father under Family Code §7611(d) and also (erroneously, per this opinion) a "third parent" under §7612(c); court ordered supervised contact pending review.
- T.L. (the social father) and Mother appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for presumed-father status, misapplication of §7612(c), and failure to weigh competing presumptions under §7612(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether B.S. is a presumed father under Fam. Code §7611(d) | T.L. & Mother: insufficient evidence; B.S. lacked current relationship, visits, or ongoing holding out | B.S. & Agency: substantial evidence he previously received L.L. into his home and held her out as his child (family-court order, support, paperwork, statements) | Affirmed: substantial evidence B.S. met §7611(d) based on earlier established parental relationship; later absence (prison) did not rebut the presumption |
| Whether B.S. qualifies as a "third parent" under Fam. Code §7612(c) | T.L., Mother, Agency: §7612(c) requires an existing parent-child relationship and a showing that recognizing only two parents would be detrimental; B.S. lacked an existing relationship | B.S.: court found adding him would not be detrimental and designated him a third parent | Reversed: court misread §7612(c); no substantial evidence B.S. had an existing relationship at time of hearing, so §7612(c) did not apply |
| Whether juvenile court must weigh competing presumptions under Fam. Code §7612(b) | T.L. & Mother: no remand; B.S. should not be presumed father over T.L. | Agency: remand for evidentiary hearing to weigh competing presumptions | Remanded: court erred by failing to conduct §7612(b) weighing; directed to hold hearing, make findings, and resolve competing claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Dawn D. v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.4th 932 (Cal. 1998) (overview of UPA and parentage presumptions)
- Adoption of Kelsey S., 1 Cal.4th 816 (Cal. 1992) (standards for parental status inquiries)
- J.O., 178 Cal.App.4th 139 (Ct. App. 2009) (once statutory elements for §7611(d) are met, later absence does not necessarily rebut presumed-father status)
- In re Alexander P., 4 Cal.App.5th 475 (Ct. App. 2016) (contrasting view that presumed-parent status must exist at time of dependency ruling)
- R.M. v. T.A., 233 Cal.App.4th 760 (Ct. App. 2015) (factors for §7611(d): receiving child into home, holding out, support; no single factor is dispositive)
- Donovan L., 244 Cal.App.4th 1075 (Ct. App. 2016) (§7612(c) limited to rare cases with existing parent-child relationships; must consider detriment of recognizing only two parents)
- In re M.R., 7 Cal.App.5th 886 (Ct. App. 2017) (presumed-parent inquiry focuses on established parental relationship and commitment)