Santa Clara County Department of Family and Childrren's Services v. J.J.
210 Cal. App. 4th 541
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- D.M., the third child of mother, was taken into protective custody from the hospital at birth in February 2012.
- JJ., mother’s boyfriend, is not married to mother and is not D.M.’s biological father; he claimed paternity and sought presumed father status.
- The juvenile court held that JJ. could be the presumed father under section 7611, despite lacking a biological tie, and ordered reunification services for JJ. and mother.
- The Department petitioned for jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 and appealed the presumed father finding.
- The Department recommended reunification services for mother only, and identified an unrelated relative as the preferred placement if reunification failed.
- The appellate court concluded JJ. cannot meet statutory or constitutional standards for presumed father status without an existing familial bond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether JJ. is a statutorily presumed father under §7611 | Department: JJ. lacks declaration, marriage, and home entry sufficient for §7611(d). | JJ.: Jerry P. equitable analysis may apply to recognition of paternal status. | JJ. is not a statutorily presumed father; lacks §7611 categories. |
| Whether Jerry P. allows an equitable father to gain status in this case | Department: Jerry P. does not overcome lack of statutory basis here. | JJ. relies on Jerry P. as an equitable father with constitutional protection. | Jerry P. does not apply because no existing familial bond was shown. |
| Whether there exists an existing familial bond between JJ. and D.M. warranting equal protections | Department: no proven existing parent-child bond; two-month two-hour visits do not prove home reception. | JJ. has bond evidenced by care, residence, and attachment development. | No existing familial bond proven; reversal required. |
| Whether the court should consider policies favoring two parents over strict factual findings | Department: policy favoring two parents should not override factual parentage findings. | JJ. argues two-parent policy supports keeping a second parental role. | Policy cannot override the need for a valid presumption or proven bond; reversed on the facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelsey S. v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.4th 816 (Cal. 1992) (equal protection for unwed fathers when promptly committed)
- Julia U. v. Superior Court, 64 Cal.App.4th 532 (Cal. App. 1998) (factors for biological father proving commitment to parental responsibilities)
- Jerry P. v. Superior Court, 95 Cal.App.4th 793 (Cal. App. 2002) (equitable father status extends to nonbiological fathers with bond and commitment)
- In re Zacharia D., 6 Cal.4th 435 (Cal. 1993) (foundational considerations for parental rights and responsibilities)
- In re A.A., 114 Cal.App.4th 771 (Cal. App. 2003) (receiving child into home not proven by limited visits)
- In re Cheyenne B., 203 Cal.App.4th 1361 (Cal. App. 2012) (substantial evidence standard for presumed father under §7611)
- Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 108 (Cal. 2005) (policy favoring two parents; rebuttable presumption context)
- In re Sabrina H., 217 Cal.App.3d 702 (Cal. App. 1990) (general principle of parental bond considerations)
- In re Christopher M., 113 Cal.App.4th 155 (Cal. App. 2003) (limits on custody rights without proven parentage)