Adoption of Michael H
43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 445 (1995)


Procedural: Appellant adoptive parents filed a petition to terminate respondent natural father's legal status as a child's father, Cal. Fam. Code § 7662, and respondent filed a petition to establish a parental relationship, Cal. Fam. Code § 7630(a)(1). The trial court held that respondent had a constitutional right to veto the child's adoption unless he was an unfit parent. The California Court of Appeal affirmed. The court granted review to appellants.

Facts: Stephanie (M) met Mark (F) and went steady. Two years later M was pregnant and F suggested an abortion but finally adoption was agreed upon. F was not a good expecting father and was eventually arrested for aggravated assaults against M and on M's 16th birthday attempted to kill himself F decided mat maybe he should get his life in order and as part of mat process decided not to give the child up for adoption. About 3 weeks after the birth F found an attorney willing to take his case and men proceeded to ask for custody ofthe child. A petition was filed to terminate F's status and F filed a petition to establish a father child relationship. The court determined mat F was not the presumed father and mat it would be in the child's best interests to be adopted by John and Margaret, the couple mat M had chosen. M appealed.

Issue: Must the evidence to determine whether a natural father has a constitutional right to veto an adoption, absent the showing of unfitness, show that he promptly came forward and demonstrated as full a commitment to his parental responsibilities as the biological mother allowed and the circumstances permitted within a short time after he learned or reasonably should have learned that the biological mother was pregnant with his child?

Holding: Yes. The California statutory framework for the termination of parental rights for adoption creates three classes of parents: mothers, presumed fathers, and natu¬ral fathers. Mothers and presumed fathers' parental rights may not be terminated without a showing of parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence. Natural fathers' parental rights are terminated unless there is a showing that it is in the best interests of the child to retain them. The statute confers the status of presumed father if the father "receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his natural child." The statute does not allow for constructive receipt of the child. Furthermore, the evidence shows that D did not satisfy these requirements and does not have a constitutional right to veto the adoption. D did not assume his responsibilities promptly during pregnancy.

Analysis: A teenage girl became pregnant with respondent's child, and the two agreed to give the baby up for adoption. Prior to the birth, respondent and the birth mother parted ways, and respondent later decided that he wanted to keep his child. He searched for an attorney who would take his case for free, sought help from the media and politicians, and researched the law himself. Appellants, the adoptive parents, sought to terminate respondent's parental rights.