San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Anthony R.
5 Cal. App. 5th 53
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Mother and Miguel Z. are the biological parents of Minors 1 (b.2009) and 2 (b.2010); Miguel was found the conclusively presumed father under Fam. Code §7540.
- Mother later had three children with Anthony R.; Anthony lived intermittently with mother and the children, had long histories of substance abuse and incarceration, and had prior dependency cases.
- One twin (Minor 5) died; methamphetamine exposure contributed; this triggered dependency petitions for all children under Welf. & Inst. Code §300(b).
- Anthony filed parentage inquiry forms claiming he "held out" Minors 1 and 2 as his and sought presumed father status (§7611(d)) and third-parent recognition (§7612(c)).
- The juvenile court denied third-parent status, finding no existing parent–child relationship or bond between Anthony and Minors 1 and 2 and no evidence of detriment if his parental status were not recognized.
- On appeal, the court reviewed whether a claimant must first establish parentage under the Uniform Parentage Act before a court may apply §7612(c), and whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a person must first establish a claim to parentage under the Uniform Parentage Act before seeking recognition as a third parent under Fam. Code §7612(c) | Agency: §7612(c) applies only to “persons with a claim to parentage under this division,” so claimant must first meet Uniform Parentage Act criteria | Anthony: Court applied §7612(c) without separately adjudicating presumed-parent status; §7612(c) focuses on child-centered detriment inquiry and can apply even without first finding parentage | Court: A claimant must be able to establish a parentage claim under the Uniform Parentage Act before §7612(c) applies, but any procedural error was harmless here because Anthony failed to prove parentage or an existing parent–child relationship |
| Whether Anthony satisfied the presumed-parent standard (§7611(d)) | Anthony: He lived with the children off and on, openly held them out as his, provided emotional/financial support, and was called "dad" | Agency/Juvenile Ct.: Anthony’s intermittent residence, drug use, incarcerations, lack of consistent caretaking or financial support, and children’s testimony rebut presumed-parent status | Court: Substantial evidence supports juvenile court’s implicit finding Anthony did not meet §7611(d) requirements (no fully developed parental relationship) |
| Whether §7612(c) applied (i.e., whether recognizing only two parents would be detrimental) | Anthony: He had acted as a parent; removing his status would harm the children | Agency/Juvenile Ct.: No established bond; children identified Miguel as father; no evidence of harm from denying third-parent status | Court: §7612(c) inapplicable because there was no existing parent–child relationship or bond; court affirmed denial |
| Standard of review and appealability | Anthony: appealed denial of presumed/third-parent status | Agency: questioned appealability but did not object to appellate review | Court: exercised discretion to treat appeal as timely from subsequent disposition; statutory interpretation reviewed de novo, factual parentage findings for substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Donovan L., 244 Cal.App.4th 1075 (court concluded §7612(c) applies only where an existing parent–child relationship exists and recognition of only two parents would be detrimental)
- Martinez v. Vaziri, 246 Cal.App.4th 373 (discusses familial relationship/bond and context for assessing “stable placement” under §7612(c))
- R.M. v. T.A., 233 Cal.App.4th 760 (explains requirement of a "fully developed parental relationship" for §7611(d) presumed-parent status)
- In re T.R., 132 Cal.App.4th 1202 (purpose of §7611 is to separate those who have entered a familial relationship from those who have not)
- In re D.M., 210 Cal.App.4th 541 (recognition that a nonbiological male may be deemed a presumed father if he proves an existing familial relationship)
- In re P.A., 198 Cal.App.4th 974 (procedure for weighing competing parentage claims under §7612(b))
- In re S.B., 46 Cal.4th 529 (juvenile dependency appeals and significance of parental status in dependency proceedings)