Adoption Of Kelsey S.

823 P.2d 1216 (1992)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Kari S.(M) gave birth to Kelsey, a boy, on May 18, 1988. The child's undisputed natural father is Rickie M, (F). Two days after the child's birth, F filed an action in superior court under Civil Code section 7006 to establish his parental relationship with the child and to obtain custody of the child. The court issued a restraining order that temporarily awarded care, custody, and control of the child to F. The order also stayed all adoption proceedings and prohibited any contact between the child and the prospective adoptive parents. F filed a copy of the order with law enforcement officials. He also personally attempted to serve it on the prospective adoptive parents at their home. He was unsuccessful. On May 24, 1988, Steven and Suzanne A. (AP), the prospective adoptive parents, filed an adoption petition under Civil Code section 226. Their, petition alleged that only M's consent to the adoption was required because there was no presumed father under section 7004, subdivision (a). The court modified its order and awarded temporary custody of the child to M. The court ordered M to live with the child in a shelter for unwed mothers. The trial court prohibited visitation by either AP or F. On May 31, 1988, AP filed a petition under section 7017 to terminate F's parental rights. The parties stipulated that F was the child's natural father. The superior court, however, ruled that he was not a 'presumed father' within the meaning of section 7004, subdivision (a)(4). The court held four days of hearings to determine whether it was in the child's best interest for F to retain his parental rights and whether the adoption should be allowed to proceed. The attorney appointed by the trial court to represent the child's interests advocated that F should retain his parental rights. The court found 'by a bare preponderance' of the evidence that the child's best interest required termination of F's parental rights. F appealed. The Court of Appeal rejected each of his contentions and affirmed the judgment. F appealed.