In re Arianna M. CA4/1 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/31/14 In re Arianna M. CA4/1
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
    California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
    publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
    or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
    COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION ONE
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    In re ARIANNA M., a Person Coming
    Under the Juvenile Court Law.
    D066178
    SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND
    HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
    (Super. Ct. No. NJ014780)
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v.
    ARIANNA M.,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kimberlee A.
    Lagotta, Judge. Affirmed.
    Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County
    Counsel, and Paula J. Roach, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    Michele Anne Cella, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
    and Respondent, Breanna K.
    Julie E. Braden, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
    Respondent, A.M.
    Arianna M. appeals the juvenile court's order setting aside its prior judgment of
    paternity. We affirm the order.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    Arianna M. was detained at the hospital at her birth by the San Diego County
    Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) as a result of her mother's admitted
    methamphetamine use. Arianna's mother, Breanna K., and her boyfriend, Alex M., were
    homeless at the time and had no supplies to care for a newborn. Breanna admitted to a
    20-year history of drug abuse. She also had a long history of involvement with child
    protective services, and as a result, Breanna's two older children (ages one and 10 at the
    time Arianna was detained) were in a guardianship with Breanna's mother. Arianna and
    her one year-old brother share the same biological father, Scott S. Alex, who claimed to
    be Arianna's father when she was detained, also admitted to a long history of drug abuse
    and had tens of criminal convictions.
    When interviewed by the Agency's social worker shortly after Arianna's birth,
    Breanna stated she was not sure whether Alex or Scott was Arianna's biological father.
    However, Breanna and Alex considered Alex to be Arianna's father. Breanna told the
    social worker that Scott knew she was pregnant but he wanted nothing to do with the
    child. Alex knew he might not be Arianna's biological father, but considered himself her
    2
    father and wanted to support Breanna and Arianna. Alex completed a voluntary
    declaration of paternity at the hospital. In the initial interview, the Agency's social
    worker observed that Breanna seemed to rely on Alex to make decisions for her and that
    she called Alex "daddy." As a result, the social worker was concerned about possible
    domestic violence in their relationship.
    Breanna, Alex and Scott all appeared at the detention hearing and the court
    appointed counsel for each. The court found detention of Arianna was necessary because
    of the substantial danger and risk of harm presented by custody with her parents. The
    court removed Arianna from her parents' custody and ordered reunification services for
    Breanna, Scott and Alex. At the hearing, Scott requested paternity testing and Alex
    requested presumed father status. Since the state Department of Child Support Services
    (DCSS) had not yet acknowledged Alex's paternity declaration, the court deferred the
    issue of paternity to the jurisdictional hearing.
    By the time of the initial jurisdictional hearing, Breanna and Alex had obtained
    housing and were visiting Arianna two or three times each week. At the hearing Scott
    denied paternity and indicated he did not want to participate in the dependency
    proceeding. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court granted Scott's request, relieved
    his counsel and provisionally found Alex to be Arianna's presumed father. Thereafter,
    the court struck Scott from the Agency's petition. At Breanna and Alex's request, the
    juvenile court set a further contested hearing on the jurisdictional and dispositional
    issues.
    3
    Prior to the contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing, Alex was arrested for
    several drug related offenses. At the hearing, the court received the DCSS's
    acknowledgement of Alex's voluntary declaration of paternity and found Alex to be
    Arianna's presumed father. The court also determined jurisdiction was warranted,
    removed Arianna from her parents' care, placed Arianna in a licensed foster home and
    ordered continued reunification services as well as increased visitation for Breanna and
    Alex.1 The juvenile court also set a six month review hearing.
    Before the review hearing, Breanna and Alex ended their relationship and stopped
    living together. Both parents, however, actively participated in reunification services and
    visited regularly with Arianna. At the review hearing, Breanna and Alex contested the
    matter and the juvenile court set a later hearing. Before that hearing, Breanna filed a
    motion to set aside the court's prior judgment of paternity for Alex and requested
    paternity testing. In a letter accompanying her motion, Breanna stated she feared Alex
    was toxic to Arianna's well-being and at the time she allowed Alex to be listed as
    Arianna's father on her birth certificate she was suffering from battered women's
    syndrome.
    At the six-month review hearing, the court denied Breanna's motion without
    prejudice, finding it was filed under the wrong statutory provision. The court also
    ordered continued reunification services and visitation for both parents, and set the 12-
    month review hearing. The Agency's report in advance of the 12-month hearing noted
    1      Breanna unsuccessfully appealed the jurisdictional and dispositional order.
    4
    both parents were holding jobs, progressing in their recovery and had regular, appropriate
    and loving visits with Arianna. Because Breanna and Alex had not found adequate
    housing, however, the Agency recommended that the family continue to receive
    reunification services for an additional six months.
    The same day as the 12-month review hearing Breanna filed a second motion to
    set aside Alex's presumed father status and again requested genetic testing. Breanna's
    supporting declaration stated that Alex was not Arianna's biological father and that she
    signed Alex's voluntary declaration of paternity because she was under his control and
    "was dependent on [Alex] for support and felt [she] had no option but to place him on the
    birth certificate." Breanna also stated her concern that Alex would engage in controlling
    behavior with Arianna and that he viewed Arianna as "his last bit of control over
    [Breanna] and that his reason to continue his involvement with Arianna is control and not
    her best interests." At the review hearing the court ordered genetic testing for Alex and
    also set a contested hearing on the Agency's recommendation to continue services.
    At the contested 12-month review hearing, the Agency recommended that
    Arianna, now 14-months old, be placed with Breanna. The Agency also submitted the
    results of the genetic testing, which confirmed Alex was not Arianna's biological father.
    The court followed the Agency's recommendation and placed Arianna with Breanna. The
    court continued Breanna's motion to set aside the prior paternity finding to give Alex's
    counsel time to address the results of the genetic test with him. At the continued hearing,
    Alex joined in Breanna's request to set aside the juvenile court's prior paternity finding.
    Arianna's counsel objected to setting aside the prior paternity finding on the grounds it
    5
    would leave Arianna without a father and requested that Scott be notified of the paternity
    developments. The juvenile court set an evidentiary hearing for the following month on
    the issue of paternity.
    At the evidentiary hearing the court heard the testimony of the Agency's social
    worker and received into evidence Breanna's declaration, the Agency's reports and
    visitation logs, Breanna's paternity inquiry forms for Alex and Scott and the results of
    Alex's genetic testing. The Agency's social worker, Todd Clark, testified Alex was
    engaged in reunification services and had positive interactions with Arianna throughout
    the dependency. Clark testified that when he gave Alex the results of the genetic test,
    Alex needed time to process the information. Clark then waited for Alex to contact him
    to arrange further visitation with Arianna but Alex did not contact him again. Clark also
    testified that Alex's relationship with Breanna was strained and he believed Breanna had
    a restraining order in place against Alex.
    Following closing arguments by counsel, the juvenile court issued its ruling. The
    court recognized the difficulty of the decision before it and noted the decision was
    complicated by the fact that there had been no objection to the earlier judgment of non-
    paternity with respect to Scott. The court found that although it was not generally in the
    interest of a child to leave her fatherless, in this case it was in Arianna's best interest not
    to force a co-parenting relationship between Breanna and Alex and granted Breanna's
    motion to set aside Alex's voluntary declaration of paternity.
    6
    DISCUSSION
    Arianna argues the juvenile court's order setting aside Alex's voluntary declaration
    of paternity should be reversed because it was not in her best interests. The Agency, Alex
    and Breanna each filed a brief asking this court to affirm the order.
    I
    The execution of a voluntary declaration of paternity is one way an alleged father
    can assert his status as a presumed father entitled to custody and reunification services in
    a dependency proceeding. (Fam. Code § 7571.2) After the declaration is signed and
    filed with the DCSS it has the effect of a judgment and is a conclusive presumption of
    paternity until it is set aside. (§§ 7573, 7611, 7612, subd. (a).) A voluntary declaration
    of paternity filed with the DCSS is generally sufficient to entitle the male declarant to
    presumed father status in dependency proceedings. (In re Liam L. (2000) 
    84 Cal. App. 4th 739
    , 747.)
    When a man who has signed a voluntary declaration of paternity is determined by
    genetic testing not to be the biological father of the child, section 7575, subdivision (b)(1)
    authorizes a court to "set aside a voluntary declaration of paternity unless the court
    determines that denial of the action to set aside the voluntary declaration of paternity is in
    the best interest of the child, after consideration of" a set of factors, including "[t]he age
    of the child," "[t]he length of time since the execution of the voluntary declaration of
    paternity," "[t]he nature, duration, and quality of any relationship between the man who
    2      All statutory references are to the Family Code.
    7
    signed the voluntary declaration and the child, including the duration and frequency of
    any time periods during which the child and the man . . . resided in the same household or
    enjoyed a parent-child relationship," "[t]he request of the man who signed the voluntary
    declaration that the parent-child relationship continue," "[n]otice by the biological father
    of the child that he does not oppose preservation of the relationship between the man who
    signed the voluntary declaration and the child," "[t]he benefit or detriment to the child in
    establishing the biological parentage of the child," and "[a]dditional factors deemed by
    the court to be relevant to its determination of the best interest of the child."
    (§7575, subd. (b)(1).)3
    An order setting aside a voluntary declaration of paternity is reviewed by this
    court for abuse of discretion. (Gabriel P. v. Suedi D. (2006) 
    141 Cal. App. 4th 850
    , 862-
    63; In re William K. (2008) 
    161 Cal. App. 4th 1
    , 10.) The order will not be disturbed on
    appeal unless the court has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary,
    capricious or patently absurd determination. When two or more inferences reasonably can
    be deduced from the facts, we have no authority to reweigh the evidence or substitute our
    decision for that of the juvenile court. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 
    7 Cal. 4th 295
    , 318-
    319.)
    3      Section 7646, subdivision (a)(2) also authorizes a judgment establishing paternity
    based on the execution of a voluntary declaration of paternity to be set aside if genetic
    testing indicates the man is not the biological father of the child. (§ 7646, subd. (a)(2).)
    Breanna's motion was brought under both sections 7646 and 7575.
    8
    II
    We agree with Alex, Breanna and the Agency that the juvenile court did not abuse
    its discretion by setting aside Alex's voluntary declaration of paternity. The juvenile
    court conducted an evidentiary hearing and considered the applicable law and relevant
    factors before finding that setting aside the declaration was in Arianna's best interests.
    The court acknowledged its order would leave Arianna without a legal father and did not
    take this fact lightly in concluding that the practical realities in this unusual situation
    favored setting aside Alex's paternity judgment.
    The court found there was no point in denying Breanna and Alex's request if, as
    the present circumstances indicated, Alex would be a "parent in name only" and would
    not contribute to Arianna's life or well-being. The court noted that Alex's reunification
    efforts were to be commended and that it was possible he would take an interest in
    Arianna's life down the road if the paternity judgment were upheld. However, the court
    found this uncertain possibility did not outweigh the benefits to Arianna of severing the
    legal tie to Alex, allowing Breanna to strengthen and develop her relationship with
    Arianna unimpeded by a relationship with Alex that Breanna viewed as unhealthy. This
    finding was supported by the facts before the juvenile court and did not constitute an
    abuse of discretion.
    9
    DISPOSITION
    The order is affirmed.
    MCCONNELL, P. J.
    WE CONCUR:
    O'ROURKE, J.
    AARON, J.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: D066178

Filed Date: 12/31/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021