San Francisco Human Services Agency v. Heidi S.
4 Cal. App. 5th 475
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Alexander P., age 3, became a dependency subject after his stepfather Donald assaulted Mother in the child’s presence; the San Francisco Human Services Agency filed the dependency petition on March 30, 2015.
- Prior family-court proceedings involved two men: Joel (biological father confirmed by DNA) and Michael (mother’s former partner who signed a voluntary declaration of paternity and had earlier visitation). Family court orders in Aug. 2014 and Mar. 2015 addressed paternity and visitation; an April 2015 family-court order (issued after the dependency petition) declared both Joel and Michael presumed parents.
- At the juvenile court’s parentage inquiry, the juvenile court deemed itself bound by the family-court April 2015 order and found Michael and Joel to be presumed parents; it also found Donald met Family Code §7611(d) and designated him a third presumed parent under §7612(c).
- The juvenile court later denied Michael visitation based largely on an out-of-court psychologist’s opinion (the psychologist did not testify and based her view on social workers’ summaries).
- Appeals challenged Donald’s and Michael’s presumed-parent designations and Michael’s visitation denial. The appellate court vacated the juvenile court’s finding that Michael was a presumed parent and the visitation denial, affirmed Joel’s and Donald’s presumed-parent findings, and remanded for the juvenile court to decide Michael’s presumed-parent claim independently.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether family court’s April 2015 paternity/presumed-parent order binds juvenile court re: Michael | Michael: family-court judgment precludes relitigation / collateral estoppel; family-court ruling should control | Joel/Agency: juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction over parentage after dependency petition; family-court order issued after petition is void | Family court lost subject-matter jurisdiction when dependency was filed; April 2015 order was void as to paternity and cannot bind juvenile court. Michael’s presumed-parent finding vacated; remanded for juvenile-court determination. |
| Whether Joel’s presumed-parent status must be vacated because juvenile court relied on the April 2015 order | Michael: Joel’s status depends on same void order so should be vacated | Joel/Mother/Minor: Joel has an earlier August 2014 family-court judgment (final) declaring him presumed parent, entered while family court had jurisdiction | August 2014 judgment was a final paternity/presumed-parent judgment and under Fam. Code §7636 is determinative; juvenile court was bound as to Joel; designation affirmed. |
| Whether Donald qualifies as a presumed parent under Fam. Code §7611(d) and whether allowing a third presumed parent was permissible under §7612(c) | Michael/minor: Donald lacks the necessary parental relationship / his domestic violence should disqualify him | Donald/Agency: Donald lived with and parented the child for ~20 months; child viewed him as a father; removing him would be detrimental | Substantial evidence supports Donald’s presumed-parent status under §7611(d); the court permissibly found designation of a third presumed parent would avoid detriment under §7612(c); designation affirmed. |
| Whether juvenile court properly denied Michael visitation | Agency/Mother: visitation would be detrimental based on expert opinion and domestic-violence history | Michael: expert opinion was untested; juvenile court must independently weigh evidence; denial improper | Denial of visitation is moot if Michael is not a presumed parent; but court erred in deferring to an untested expert and failing to make an independent detriment finding—vacated and, if Michael becomes presumed parent on remand, visitation must be reconsidered. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jesusa V., 32 Cal.4th 588 (Cal. 2004) (juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction over paternity issues once dependency petition filed)
- In re J.L., 159 Cal.App.4th 1010 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (presumed-parent status analyzes familial relationship and commitment; historically only one presumed father)
- In re Donovan L., 244 Cal.App.4th 1075 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (interpreting §7612(c) detriment standard for naming more than two presumed parents)
- In re T.R., 132 Cal.App.4th 1202 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (serious parent misconduct can outweigh factors favoring presumed-parent status; no bright-line rule)
- In re Spencer W., 48 Cal.App.4th 1647 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (‘‘openly holds out’’ requirement evaluated in context of sustained commitment vs convenience)