Father whose identity is unknown and not ascertainable isn't entitled to notice of jurisdictional/dispositional hearing.
Cite as
1998 DJDAR 7598Published
Apr. 2, 1999Filing Date
Jul. 7, 1998
ORDER
Appellate Opinion Decertified IN RE GENESHA S., A PERSON COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES, Respondent v. EUGENE S., Appellant C.A. 4th, Division 2, No. E021495 No. S070997 California Supreme Court Filed July 8, 1998
The Reporter of Decisions is directed not to publish in the Official Appellate Reports the opinion in the above-entitled appeal filed April 14, 1998, which appears at 63 Cal. App. 4th 1206. (Cal Const., art. VI, section 14, rule 976. al Rules of Court.)
(Editor Note - For your convenience we reprint below the Daily Jounal's Ruling Column brief which summarized the earlier decision of thelover court.)
JUVENILES
Father whose identity is unknown and not ascertainable isn't entitled to notice of jurisdictional/dispositional hearing.
The C.A. 4th has concluded that a father whose identity was not known or reasonably ascertainable when the court set a minor's jurisdictional/dispositional dependency hearing was not entitled to notice of the hearing.
Genesha S. was born addicted to cocaine. Her mother, Leandra G., had already either lost custody or relinquished custody of five other children due to her cocaine addiction. Leandra refused to identify Genesha's father. The Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) filed a juvenile dependency petition regarding Genesha. DPSS did not give Genesha's father any notice of the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing. At the hearing, a permanency planning hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 366.26 was set. Eugene S. was later identified as Genesha's father. DPSS located him in a prison in Susanville, where he was serving a sentence for possession of cocaine for sale. DPSS gave Eugene notice of the permanency planning hearing. Eugene moved to set aside the orders from the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing and to obtain reunification services. The trial court denied the petition and terminated both his and Leandra's parental rights. Eugene contended that the lack of notice for the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing was a fatal defect in the proceedings. DPSS argued that Eugene was not entitled to notice because he was not a "presumed father" within the meaning of the Uniform Parentage Act.
The C.A. 4th affirmed. Section 302 of the Welfare and Institutions Code requires that both parents be notified of all proceedings involving parental rights. Notice to "parents" requires notice to presumed and alleged fathers and mothers. "Eugene was not statutorily entitled to notice because his identity was unknown and could not be ascertained with due diligence. Eugene was not entitled to notice as a matter of due process because he failed to come forward promptly and demonstrate a commitment to his parental responsibilities, and even failed to file a voluntary declaration of paternity or a paternity action." Therefore, he never achieved presumed, or even quasi-presumed father status. "He merely reacted to the dependency proceeding."
Genesha S., a Minor, C.A. 4th, No. E021495, filed April 14, 1998, by Richli, J.
The full text of this case appears in 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5033, May 15, 1998.
Appellate Opinion Decertified IN RE GENESHA S., A PERSON COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES, Respondent v. EUGENE S., Appellant C.A. 4th, Division 2, No. E021495 No. S070997 California Supreme Court Filed July 8, 1998
The Reporter of Decisions is directed not to publish in the Official Appellate Reports the opinion in the above-entitled appeal filed April 14, 1998, which appears at 63 Cal. App. 4th 1206. (Cal Const., art. VI, section 14, rule 976. al Rules of Court.)
George, C.J.
(Editor Note - For your convenience we reprint below the Daily Jounal's Ruling Column brief which summarized the earlier decision of thelover court.)
JUVENILES
Father whose identity is unknown and not ascertainable isn't entitled to notice of jurisdictional/dispositional hearing.
The C.A. 4th has concluded that a father whose identity was not known or reasonably ascertainable when the court set a minor's jurisdictional/dispositional dependency hearing was not entitled to notice of the hearing.
Genesha S. was born addicted to cocaine. Her mother, Leandra G., had already either lost custody or relinquished custody of five other children due to her cocaine addiction. Leandra refused to identify Genesha's father. The Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) filed a juvenile dependency petition regarding Genesha. DPSS did not give Genesha's father any notice of the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing. At the hearing, a permanency planning hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 366.26 was set. Eugene S. was later identified as Genesha's father. DPSS located him in a prison in Susanville, where he was serving a sentence for possession of cocaine for sale. DPSS gave Eugene notice of the permanency planning hearing. Eugene moved to set aside the orders from the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing and to obtain reunification services. The trial court denied the petition and terminated both his and Leandra's parental rights. Eugene contended that the lack of notice for the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing was a fatal defect in the proceedings. DPSS argued that Eugene was not entitled to notice because he was not a "presumed father" within the meaning of the Uniform Parentage Act.
The C.A. 4th affirmed. Section 302 of the Welfare and Institutions Code requires that both parents be notified of all proceedings involving parental rights. Notice to "parents" requires notice to presumed and alleged fathers and mothers. "Eugene was not statutorily entitled to notice because his identity was unknown and could not be ascertained with due diligence. Eugene was not entitled to notice as a matter of due process because he failed to come forward promptly and demonstrate a commitment to his parental responsibilities, and even failed to file a voluntary declaration of paternity or a paternity action." Therefore, he never achieved presumed, or even quasi-presumed father status. "He merely reacted to the dependency proceeding."
Genesha S., a Minor, C.A. 4th, No. E021495, filed April 14, 1998, by Richli, J.
The full text of this case appears in 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5033, May 15, 1998.
#245528
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424