Adoption of O.M.
169 Cal. App. 4th 672 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An unwed biological father is not constitutionally entitled to prevent the termination of his parental rights if his own voluntary criminal conduct and resulting incarceration are the primary impediments to demonstrating a full commitment to his parental responsibilities, even if the child's mother also frustrated his efforts.
Facts:
- B.R. and L.T., an unmarried couple who never lived together, conceived a child, O.M.
- In February 2006, B.R. learned L.T. was pregnant and they initially discussed raising the child together.
- Approximately one week after confirming the pregnancy, B.R., who was on parole, was arrested for a parole violation stemming from drug use and was incarcerated for four months.
- After B.R.'s release in June 2006, L.T. began avoiding him and resumed a relationship with another man.
- While B.R. was making some efforts to contact L.T., she met T.M. and J.R. through an adoption facilitator in July 2006 and agreed to place the baby with them, falsely claiming she did not know the father's identity.
- B.R. learned of the adoption plan in July or August 2006 and scheduled a meeting with a lawyer to assert his rights.
- On August 6, 2006, the day before his legal appointment, B.R. was arrested for being a felon in possession of a handgun and possession of methamphetamine for sale.
- O.M. was born on September 11, 2006, and L.T. immediately relinquished the child to T.M. and J.R., who have had physical custody ever since.
Procedural Posture:
- On September 10, 2006, B.R. filed a petition in the San Bernardino Superior Court (a trial court) to establish paternity and halt any adoption proceedings.
- On September 25, 2006, T.M. and J.R. filed an adoption request and a notice to terminate B.R.'s parental rights in the San Francisco Superior Court (a trial court).
- B.R. entered a plea bargain in his criminal case and was sentenced to 12 years in state prison.
- On November 1, 2006, B.R. filed an objection to the adoption in the San Francisco proceedings.
- The San Francisco Superior Court held a hearing and issued an order finding that B.R. was not entitled to constitutional protection and terminated his parental rights to allow the adoption to proceed.
- B.R. (appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the Court of Appeals of California (an intermediate appellate court), and T.M. and J.R. are the respondents.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a biological father, whose ability to demonstrate a full commitment to his parental responsibilities was impeded primarily by his own criminal conduct and resulting incarceration, have a constitutional right under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses to prevent an adoption without a showing of his unfitness as a parent?
Opinions:
Majority - Ruvolo, P. J.
No. A biological father does not have a constitutional right to prevent an adoption without a showing of unfitness if his own actions, rather than the mother's unilateral conduct, were the primary reason for his failure to demonstrate a full commitment to his parental responsibilities. The court applied the standard from Adoption of Kelsey S., which grants constitutional protection to unwed fathers who promptly come forward and demonstrate a full commitment to their parental duties. Here, B.R.'s parental efforts were significantly thwarted by his own choices. He was incarcerated for a parole violation shortly after learning of the pregnancy and was arrested again for serious felonies before the child was born, leading to a 12-year prison sentence. The court reasoned that while L.T.'s avoidance of B.R. played a role, his own criminal activity was the far more substantial impediment. Therefore, his failure to meet the Kelsey S. requirements was not excused, as it was not a case where a mother unilaterally prevented a willing father from assuming his role.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'frustration' exception within the Kelsey S. framework, which protects a father's rights when the mother unilaterally prevents him from forming a parental relationship. The court holds that this exception does not apply when the father's own voluntary criminal behavior is the primary obstacle to his demonstrating parental commitment. The ruling establishes that a father cannot use the mother's actions as a shield to excuse a failure to parent when his own illegal conduct is the predominant cause of that failure. This reinforces the principle that the constitutional right is not merely for biological fathers, but for those who actively and promptly grasp their parental responsibilities.
