I’ve reported many times about the fact that adoption laws are one of the many – and in some cases most outrageous – ways in which fathers lose their children. This is another example and it comes from the State of California that is one of the major offenders when it comes to depriving fathers of their children via adoption (Leagle.com, 4/15/11). There are some 29 states with Putative Father Registries whose frank purpose is to deny to fathers notice of judicial proceedings to terminate their rights. But California is not one of those states. Its discrimination against unmarried fathers is, if anything, even more blatant than that of PFR states.
California’s Family Code sets up three classes of parents – mothers, biological fathers and presumed fathers. Mothers have parental rights because they’re mothers. Period. Fathers however, aren’t so lucky. If you’re a dad and you’re married to a woman who gives birth to a child, you’re the child’s presumed father. That’s OK if you actually are the father, but, as readers will recognize, not so good if the child isn’t yours. The presumption of paternity can serve to establish your obligation to pay child support in the event of divorce for a child who’s not yours. Single fathers are in still another bind. Unlike single mothers, they have to prove to the satisfaction of a judge that they’re active, responsible, hands-on dads in order to establish their parental rights. If they fail to do that, their child can be adopted without their consent. Of course, about 40% of births in this country are to single mothers, so I’d guess that about 40% of children are fathered by single fathers. That means that the statutory discrimination against single fathers is no small thing. Given that, I’d be interested to know the general level of knowledge among single men in California about what’s required to secure their rights to a child they’ve fathered. In California, a biological father who wants to stop the adoption of his child must prove he is a “presumed father.” He bears the burden of proving he’s a presumed father. The court in In re Isaac C., described what he must do to meet his burden of proof.
Under section 7611, subdivision (d), a man who has neither legally married nor attempted to marry the child’s mother may attain presumed father status if he “receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his natural child…”
The court considers his conduct before and after the child’s birth, including whether he publicly acknowledged paternity, paid pregnancy and birth expenses commensurate with his ability to do so, and promptly took legal action to obtain custody of the child. (Kelsey S., supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 849.) He must demonstrate a full commitment to his parental responsibilities within a short time after he learned the biological mother was pregnant with his child. (Michael H., supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1060.) He must also demonstrate a willingness to assume full custody.
Now, vigilant readers will notice that many of the things the unmarried biological dad is required to do are under the control of the mother. Has he married her? That’s up to her. Has he taken the child into his home and cared for it? That too is up to her. Has he paid medical or other expenses? She can reject his offer. So from the outset, it’s clear enough that the most responsible father can have his parental desires thwarted and his rights terminated by a mother who’s intent on doing so. Indeed, that’s exactly what happened in the Christian Diaz case earlier this year, another one out of California. Still, there are things a dad can do independent of the mother. He can go to court and claim paternity; he can announce to all and sundry that he wants full custody; he can prepare his home to receive the child, draw up a parenting plan, purchase baby clothes, furniture and supplies. And it can all be ruled insufficient to meet the requirements of the statute, whether or not he knows what those are. That’s exactly what happened in the Issac C. case. We know all that about California adoption law that explicitly discriminates against single fathers. But the Isaac C. case goes the law one better. On the face of it, Isaac C. is just another off-the-shelf California adoption case of which we’ve seen many. In it, Jonathan L. and Lourdes R. had a relationship and Lourdes became pregnant. Both were unmarried. Lourdes considered abortion but apparently didn’t have the money for one and Jonathan didn’t give her the money. She contacted an adoption agency and decided on Peter and Jennifer C. to be the child’s adoptive parents. Jonathan didn’t agree. He asked her to marry him, told her he wanted custody of the child, said the same thing to the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency, wrote a letter to the court saying the same thing and filed an action to stop the adoption. He also bought baby clothes and supplies and generally prepared for the arrival of his child. But Lourdes told the court that Jonathan was indifferent to her and to their child and had done all-but-nothing to support her either financially or emotionally. The judge believed her and green-lighted the adoption. Here’s what’s interesting about that:
Lourdes said Jonathan did not support her or provide her with any money while she was pregnant. Lourdes’s sister, Lourdes’s mother, Jonathan and Jonathan’s brother all testified to the contrary, saying Jonathan had supported Lourdes by giving her money and taking her to doctor’s appointments. Jonathan testified he was prepared to marry Lourdes after her divorce from her first husband became final. He had purchased supplies for the baby, but Lourdes kept him from seeing Isaac at the hospital.
You be the judge. You’re trying to decide between competing claims about what Jonathan L. did to prove his parental involvement during Lourdes’s pregnancy. Lourdes wants the child to be adopted; if the adoption fails, Jonathan probably gets custody and she has to pay child support for a child she doesn’t want. On one hand, Lourdes says he did little or nothing to support her or prove his commitment to the child. On the other hand, Jonathan, his brother, Lourdes’s mother and Lourdes’s sister agree with him. Four people, two of whom are closely related to Lourdes, say he is a stand-up guy who did everything in his power to prove his worth as a father. You’re the judge; who do you believe? Well, if your the judge in this trial court, you believe Lourdes and discount her mother, her sister, Jonathan and his brother. You also discount her motivation to misrepresent the facts. All that adds up to another nail in the coffin of single dads who don’t want to lose their kids to adoption. As if California’s frank discrimination against single fathers isn’t enough, add apparent discrimination by trial courts. How else to explain a judge who plainly ignored the great weight of believable evidence in order to reach the desired result?