Steven A. v. Rickie M. (Adoption of Kelsey S.)
1 Cal. 4th 816, 823 P.2d 1216, 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 615 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statutory scheme that allows a mother to unilaterally preclude her child's biological father from becoming a presumed father, thereby allowing the state to terminate his parental rights based on the child's best interest, violates the father's federal constitutional rights to equal protection and due process if he has promptly come forward and demonstrated a full commitment to his parental responsibilities.
Facts:
- Rickie M. and Kari S., who were not married, had a child named Kelsey.
- Rickie M. was aware that Kari S. planned to place their child for adoption.
- Rickie M. objected to the adoption plan because he wanted to rear the child himself.
- Two days after Kelsey's birth, Rickie M. filed a legal action to establish his paternity and obtain custody.
- Kari S. and the prospective adoptive parents, Steven and Suzanne A., prevented Rickie M. from physically receiving the child into his home, a requirement to become a 'presumed father' under state law.
- Rickie M. consistently and openly held out the child as his own.
Procedural Posture:
- Rickie M. filed a petition in superior court to establish paternity and obtain custody.
- The superior court initially granted Rickie M. temporary custody but later modified the order, awarding temporary custody to the mother, Kari S.
- Steven and Suzanne A. filed a petition to adopt the child and a separate petition to terminate Rickie M.'s parental rights, which were consolidated.
- The superior court ruled that Rickie M. was not a 'presumed father' under the relevant statute.
- After a hearing, the superior court found by a preponderance of the evidence that it was in the child's best interest to terminate Rickie M.'s parental rights and allow the adoption to proceed.
- Rickie M. (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the superior court's judgment, prompting Rickie M. to seek review from the California Supreme Court.
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 state statutory scheme violate the federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process by allowing a mother to unilaterally prevent a child's biological father from acquiring the same legal right as her to veto an adoption, when the father has diligently and promptly demonstrated a full commitment to his parental responsibilities?
Opinions:
Majority - Baxter, J.
Yes, the statutory scheme violates the father's constitutional rights under these circumstances. An unwed father who promptly comes forward and demonstrates a full commitment to his parental responsibilities—emotional, financial, and otherwise—acquires a constitutionally protected interest in his parental relationship that cannot be terminated without a showing of his unfitness as a parent. The California statutory scheme, by allowing a mother to unilaterally prevent a father from satisfying the statutory requirements to become a 'presumed father' (e.g., by receiving the child into his home), creates a sex-based classification. This classification is not substantially related to the state's important interest in the child's well-being because it leads to irrational results, treating a fully committed father's rights as inferior to the mother's based solely on her actions. Citing Stanley v. Illinois and Caban v. Mohammed, the court found that the biological connection offers the father an opportunity to develop a relationship, and if he grasps that opportunity, the state must provide him with protections equivalent to the mother's, prohibiting termination of his rights based on a mere 'best interest of the child' standard.
Concurring - Mosk, J.
I concur in the result only. The majority should not have reached the constitutional question and declared the statute unconstitutional as applied, as this creates needless uncertainty. The principle of constitutional avoidance dictates a simpler solution based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. If, on remand, the facts show that the mother and prospective adoptive parents deviously thwarted the father's attempts to meet the statutory requirements of becoming a presumed father, they should be estopped from denying that he achieved that status. This approach would provide justice for the individual father in this case without invalidating a long-standing statutory framework for all other cases.
Analysis:
This decision significantly bolsters the constitutional rights of unwed fathers who demonstrate a commitment to parenting. It establishes that a biological father's parental interest is not contingent on the mother's consent or cooperation but rather on his own prompt and responsible actions. The ruling carves out a constitutionally protected class of 'Kelsey S. fathers'—those who act like a parent from the outset—and mandates that their rights can only be terminated under the stringent 'unfitness' standard, the same applied to mothers and presumed fathers. This effectively limits a mother's ability to unilaterally facilitate an adoption by preventing the father from meeting the statutory criteria for presumed fatherhood, thereby shifting the legal focus from the father's formal status to his substantive commitment.
Unlock the full brief for Steven A. v. Rickie M. (Adoption of Kelsey S.)