San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Shannon L.
244 Cal. App. 4th 1075, 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 105, 198 Cal. Rptr. 3d 550 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California Family Code § 7612(c), a court may recognize a third parent only in rare cases where an existing, established parent-child relationship has formed between the child and the putative third parent. A finding of detriment necessary to recognize a third parent cannot be based on a biological connection or the potential for a future relationship, but must be based on the harm of severing an existing parental bond.
Facts:
- Shannon L. was married to Donovan L., Sr. at the time of their son Donovan L., Jr.'s (DJ) conception in 2010 and birth in 2011.
- In 2010, Shannon had an affair with David S. and informed him she was pregnant with his child.
- David did not seek involvement in DJ's life until July 2012, after seeing the one-year-old child in a parking lot, noticing a resemblance, and independently obtaining a paternity test confirming he was the biological father.
- After confirming paternity, Shannon facilitated a few visits between David and DJ, unbeknownst to her husband, Donovan.
- In August 2012, Shannon and DJ stayed at David's apartment for two weeks due to marital problems with Donovan.
- During that two-week stay, a police incident occurred at David's apartment involving a fight between Shannon and David and the discovery of approximately 50 marijuana plants.
Procedural Posture:
- In 2012, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a juvenile dependency petition for DJ.
- In the 2012 dependency proceeding, the juvenile court found Donovan to be DJ's conclusively presumed father under Family Code § 7540.
- David initially sought presumed father status in the 2012 case but later withdrew his request, agreeing to be designated as DJ's biological father.
- In March 2015, the Agency filed a new dependency petition, initiating the current case.
- In the 2015 proceeding, David appeared and requested presumed father status.
- Following a contested hearing, the juvenile court declared David a presumed father under § 7611(d) and a third parent under § 7612(c), finding it would be detrimental for DJ to have only two parents.
- Shannon L. (mother) and Donovan L., Sr. (conclusively presumed father) appealed the juvenile court's disposition order to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District.
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 California Family Code § 7612(c) permit a court to recognize a third parent based on a biological connection and the potential for a future parent-child relationship, where no significant existing parental bond has been established?
Opinions:
Majority - Irion, J.
No. California Family Code § 7612(c) does not permit a court to recognize a third parent based merely on a biological connection and the potential for a future relationship. The court reasoned that the statute is intended for 'rare cases' where a child already has an existing, established parent-child relationship with more than two individuals, and recognizing only two parents would be detrimental because it would sever that existing bond. The legislative history shows the statute's purpose is to protect children from the 'devastating psychological and emotional impact' of being separated from a person who is already a parent 'in every way.' The juvenile court's own finding that David 'does not have a strong relationship' with DJ and needed to 'develop a relationship' demonstrated that the necessary precondition of an existing parental bond was absent. The lower court's reliance on DJ's biological heritage and speculation about future harm was insufficient to meet the statute's 'detriment' standard. Therefore, without the applicability of § 7612(c), Donovan's conclusive marital presumption of paternity under § 7540 defeats David's claim.
Analysis:
This decision provides a significant and narrow interpretation of California's 'three-parent' statute, Family Code § 7612(c). It establishes a crucial precedent that the statute is not a tool for creating new parental relationships based on biology, but a shield to protect existing, established ones. By requiring a pre-existing, meaningful parent-child bond, the court sets a high bar for recognizing more than two parents, reinforcing the legal system's traditional focus on preserving stability and developed relationships over biological ties. This ruling significantly curtails the statute's potential application and clarifies that its purpose is to prevent the harm of severing an existing parental role, not to facilitate the creation of one.
