San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Shannon L.
244 Cal. App. 4th 1075
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- DJ (born 2011) was raised by mother Shannon L.; Shannon was married to Donovan L., Sr., who is DJ's conclusively presumed father under Fam. Code §7540. A paternity test later showed David S. is DJ's biological father.
- Earlier dependency proceedings: 2012 juvenile case recognized David as biological father by agreement (he withdrew a presumed‑father request then); case later terminated. 2014 matter involved mother's substance issues. 2015 petition alleged mother’s substance abuse; DJ placed with Donovan.
- In April–June 2015 proceedings, David sought presumed‑father status under Fam. Code §7611(d) (receives child into home and holds out as natural child). Juvenile court found David a presumed father under §7611(d).
- The juvenile court also applied Fam. Code §7612(c) (2014 amendment permitting more than two parents in "appropriate action" where recognizing only two parents would be detrimental) and concluded DJ would be harmed if limited to two parents, declaring DJ had three parents and ordering services and visitation for David.
- On appeal, parents argued (1) estoppel bars David’s claim; (2) David is not a presumed parent under §7611(d); (3) §7612(c) was improperly applied because no existing parent‑child relationship existed; and (4) no statutory basis for services to David if he is not a parent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral/equitable estoppel bars David from seeking presumed‑father status after withdrawing that claim in 2012 | Shannon/Donovan: David is estopped because he accepted biological‑father status in 2012 | David/Agency: No final adjudication on presumed‑father claim; no detrimental reliance | Court: No estoppel—2012 withdrawal and agreement did not actually litigate or decide presumed‑father status and equitable estoppel elements not met |
| Whether substantial evidence supports finding David is a presumed parent under Fam. Code §7611(d) | Shannon/Donovan: David did not meet "receive into home and hold out" standard | David: Lived with child two weeks in 2012, ongoing visits, gifts, held out to family | Court: Assumed (without deciding) there is substantial evidence to support the §7611(d) finding |
| Whether §7612(c) permits recognizing a third parent where no existing parent‑child relationship exists | Shannon/Donovan/DJ: §7612(c) applies only in "rare cases" with an existing, substantial parent‑child bond; here no established bond | Agency/David: §7612(c) allows court discretion to protect potential harms from denying biological parent status | Court: §7612(c) inapplicable—statute intended to protect established parent‑child relationships; juvenile court erred because it found David lacked a strong existing relationship, so no substantial evidence of detriment from recognizing only two parents |
| Whether services and visitation may be ordered for David absent parental status | Shannon/Donovan: No statutory basis to provide services or visitation to a nonparent when a conclusive presumed father exists | Agency/David: Services (maintenance) appropriate if David is treated as family/parent | Court: Reversed as to orders granting services/visitation to David—he is not entitled to services absent parental status; remainder of disposition affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 61 Cal.4th 813 (California Supreme Court) (issue‑preclusion standards)
- Lucido v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 335 (California Supreme Court) (policies underlying collateral estoppel)
- In re Kelsey S., 1 Cal.4th 816 (California Supreme Court) (liberty interest in maintaining existing biological‑father relationship)
- Michelle W. v. Ronald W., 39 Cal.3d 354 (California Supreme Court) (one presumed father rule)
- In re M.C., 195 Cal.App.4th 197 (California Court of Appeal) (prior case limiting courts from recognizing more than two parents)
- Guardianship of Ann S., 45 Cal.4th 1110 (California Supreme Court) (detriment from disrupting established custodial arrangement)
- In re I.J., 56 Cal.4th 766 (California Supreme Court) (substantial‑evidence review in dependency findings)
- In re Nicholas H., 28 Cal.4th 56 (California Supreme Court) (preserving social parent‑child relationships over biological ties)