Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services v. Irene V.
195 Cal.App.4th 197 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When multiple individuals meet the statutory or constitutional criteria for being a presumed parent, resulting in more than two parents for a child, a court cannot recognize all of them. The court must resolve the conflict by weighing the competing presumptions to determine which are founded on the weightier considerations of policy and logic, thereby limiting the child to two legal parents.
Facts:
- Melissa V. and Irene V. began a relationship in June 2006 and became registered domestic partners in February 2008.
- The couple separated in May 2008, during which time Melissa V. began an intimate relationship with Jesus P. and became pregnant with his child, M.C.
- For the first few months of her pregnancy, Melissa V. lived with Jesus P. and his family, who provided her with financial support and ensured she received prenatal care.
- In September 2008, Melissa V. reconciled with Irene V., moved out of Jesus P.'s home, and ceased contact with him without providing a new address.
- Melissa V. and Irene V. married on October 15, 2008.
- M.C. was born in March 2009, while Melissa V. and Irene V. were married and living together.
- About three to four weeks after M.C.'s birth, Melissa V. left Irene V., taking the child with her.
- In September 2009, Melissa V. was arrested as an accessory to the attempted murder of Irene V. after Melissa V.'s new boyfriend stabbed Irene V., an event which triggered the child dependency proceedings.
Procedural Posture:
- The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a dependency petition in juvenile court regarding the minor, M.C.
- At an initial detention hearing, the juvenile court found Melissa V. to be the biological mother, Irene V. to be the presumed mother, and Jesus P. to be an 'alleged father.'
- The juvenile court sustained the dependency petition, declaring M.C. a dependent of the court.
- At the conclusion of the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court found that M.C. had three presumed parents: Melissa V. (biological mother), Irene V. (presumed mother), and Jesus P. (a 'Kelsey S.' presumed father).
- The court placed M.C. in the care of her maternal grandparents, ordered reunification services for all three parents, and denied Jesus P.'s request for immediate custody.
- Melissa V. and Irene V. appealed the juvenile court's order finding Jesus P. to be a presumed father. Jesus P. cross-appealed the dispositional order denying him custody.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Must a juvenile court, when faced with three individuals who each qualify as a presumed parent, weigh the conflicting parentage presumptions under Family Code § 7612 to select only two legal parents?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, J.
Yes, a juvenile court must weigh conflicting parentage presumptions to select only two parents. While a child may have multiple individuals who meet the criteria for presumed parent status, California law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, does not permit a child to have three legal parents. In this case, Melissa is the biological mother, Irene is a presumed mother based on her marriage to Melissa at the time of the child's birth (Fam. Code § 7611(a)), and Jesus is a quasi-presumed or 'Kelsey S.' father because he promptly demonstrated a full commitment to his parental responsibilities but was thwarted by the mother's unilateral actions. The juvenile court correctly identified these three as having parental claims but erred by failing to take the next required step under Family Code § 7612(b). The case must be remanded for the juvenile court to resolve the competing claims by determining which presumptions are founded on 'the weightier considerations of policy and logic' to limit the number of parents to two.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Rothschild, Acting P. J.
Agrees that Jesus is a presumed father, but dissents, arguing that the appellate court should resolve the conflicting presumptions now rather than remanding for further proceedings. The majority correctly finds that Jesus is a 'Kelsey S.' father. However, remanding the case for the trial court to weigh the presumptions causes unnecessary and harmful delay for the child. The record is sufficient for the appellate court to conclude that Jesus’s presumption should not be rebutted and that the conflict should be resolved in his favor. Consequently, the child, M.C., should be placed in his custody immediately under Welfare and Institutions Code § 361.2, as there is no evidence that such placement would be detrimental.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the mandatory procedural step a court must take when faced with modern, complex family structures that result in more than two valid parental claims under the Uniform Parentage Act. It solidifies the precedent that California law limits a child to two parents and rejects the idea of a 'trio of parents.' The decision reinforces the application of the 'Kelsey S.' doctrine in dependency proceedings, which grants constitutional protection to an unwed biological father who has demonstrated a commitment to parenting but was prevented from doing so by the mother. This ruling forces lower courts to make a definitive, albeit difficult, choice based on a holistic, policy-based analysis rather than avoiding the conflict by recognizing three parents, ensuring finality in parentage determinations.
