San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Jade M.
197 Cal. App. 4th 1279
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Levi H. was born in 2008 to Jade and Andrew; a voluntary declaration of paternity was signed and witnessed the day after birth.
- Jade and Andrew married briefly, then separated; Andrew had a history of violence and restraining orders were issued; Jade sole custody and Andrew had supervised visits.
- Michael M. married Jade in 2010; Maddox M. was born later that year; Maddox suffered serious head injuries while Michael cared for him.
- Agency filed dependency petitions alleging substantial risk of harm to Maddox and Levi due to Michael’s actions and Jade’s ability to protect them.
- Detention hearing designated Michael as the presumed father for both children; Andrew later sought presumption through the voluntary declaration.
- Court allowed Andrew to be designated as Levi’s presumed father based on the declaration; the matter proceeded to contested jurisdiction, paternity, and disposition hearings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Andrew’s voluntary declaration trump Michael’s presumed-father status for Levi? | Michael argues declaration is superseded by 7611(d) presumptions. | Declaration should be weighed against Michael’s status under 7611/7612. | Declaration trumps Michael’s presumption; no weighing required. |
| Can a weighing analysis be triggered when a voluntary declaration exists? | Weighing should occur under 7612(b). | Weighing not applicable; declaration has force of judgment and overrides. | Weighing not triggered; declaration extinguishes Michael’s presumption by law. |
| Was Jade’s custody removal supported by clear and convincing evidence? | Jade unable/unwilling to protect Maddox and Levi; removal appropriate. | Court should not remove without stronger evidence of current risk. | No abuse of discretion; court reasonably found risk and need for out-of-home placement. |
| Was Andrew’s status properly determined given evidence of past and present parental roles? | Andrew’s declaration should timely establish paternity and rights. | Court properly recognized voluntary declaration as controlling. | Andrew designated as Levi’s presumed father; consistent with statutory scheme. |
| Did the court err in relying on the Agency’s assessment of living arrangements and protection risk? | Agency findings supported continued placement with relatives. | Agency mischaracterized Jade and home situation; less risk present. | Court’s placement supported by agency findings; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kevin Q. v. Lauren W., 175 Cal.App.4th 1119 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (weighing voluntary declarations against other presumptions not allowed; declarations trump conflicting presumptions)
- In re Kobe A., 146 Cal.App.4th 1113 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (presumed father status and parental rights considerations in dependency matters)
- In re Liam L., 84 Cal.App.4th 739 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (statutory scheme and purposes of voluntary declarations of paternity)
- In re Jason J., 175 Cal.App.4th 922 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (definition of presumed father under § 7611)
- In re E.O., 182 Cal.App.4th 722 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (prior paternity judgments and presumptions under § 7611; limitations of analogy to voluntary declarations)
- In re D.R., 193 Cal.App.4th 1494 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (when declaration not witnessed or filed, presumptions and evidentiary consequences differ)
- In re Raphael P., 91 Cal.App.4th 730 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (presumptions and burdens related to official duty and evidentiary presumptions)
- In re Diamond H., 82 Cal.App.4th 1127 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (standard for removal of a minor from parent under dependency law)