Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County No. 515651 Ann Q. Ameral, Judge.
Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Carrie M. Stephens, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
DETJEN, J.
The juvenile court found Joe H. did not qualify for presumed father status and denied reunification services. Joe H. appeals from those orders asserting he is the biological father of Matthew V. and the juvenile court erred. We find no error and affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
On December 15, 2009, a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition was filed alleging that Matthew V. came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because his mother (Cynthia A.) and his father (Shawn V.) had failed to protect him. It asserted a long history of substance abuse by mother and Shawn, and other various shortcomings not pertinent to this appeal.
Because this appeal involves more than one “father, ” we shall refer to the fathers by their first name.
At the jurisdiction hearing held on April 6, 2010, the allegations of the petition were found true.
When Matthew was born in 2007, Shawn was named on his birth certificate as the father. When interviewed for the detention report, Shawn said he was not sure if he was Matthew’s biological father. As the matter proceeded in the juvenile court, both Shawn and mother said Shawn was not Matthew’s biological father. Family reunification services were recommended for mother and Shawn.
On February 16, 2010, notice was sent to Joe that a jurisdictional/dispositional hearing was to be held on March 5, 2010. Joe appeared at the hearing and also filed a Statement Regarding Parentage. In the statement, Joe requested DNA testing to determine if he was Matthew’s biological father, requested a finding that he was the presumed father, stated he had told friends and family he was Matthew’s father, stated he had participated in birthdays and holidays with Matthew, stated he had given diapers, clothes, formula, and necessities to Matthew, and stated he had spent free time with Matthew.
On May 19, 2010, it was determined, from the results of the DNA testing, that Joe was Matthew’s biological father. In a report prepared for a hearing on the matter, the social worker recommended that services not be provided to Joe because it would not benefit Matthew or be in his best interest. The report stated that, although Joe recognized Matthew as his son, he had not taken any steps to demonstrate his status as father. In particular, he was not listed on the birth certificate, had never paid child support, had never taken Matthew to any medical appointments, and had never inquired about Matthew’s health. Although Joe stated he lived with Matthew for six months before serving time in jail, he could not provide dates for when that occurred and mother reported that she and Matthew never resided with Joe. Joe had not visited Matthew regularly and, since the detention hearing, had visited Matthew only once. On that one occasion Joe merely showed up with mother for her scheduled visit. Joe never contacted the social worker to inquire about Matthew or to seek visitation. Matthew did not reference Joe as his father and did not appear to even know him.
In July 2010, the juvenile court held a hearing to determine if Joe should be classified as a presumed father and, if not so classified, whether he should be granted reunification services as the biological father.
Joe testified at the hearing. He said mother told him, after Matthew was born and still in the hospital, that he was Matthew’s father. He saw Matthew for the first time when he was approximately one and a half months old. Joe saw a resemblance and claimed to his mother, brothers, and friends that Matthew was his child. He spent time with mother at her house and at his house. He would buy food if mother and Matthew needed it, and if he had the means to do so. He spent about six months in jail beginning at about the time Matthew was crawling. He saw Matthew a few times after he got out of jail, but then he went out of town to work and did not come back to town at all. He came back to town shortly after Matthew had been removed from mother’s custody.
It was established that Joe was aware that mother was pregnant, but he was not aware the child was his. He never thought about it. He was aware that mother and Matthew were living in the same residence up until Matthew was removed from mother’s care. He did not attend any of Matthew’s birthday celebrations, nor did he request a visit with Matthew on his third birthday after he was a dependent child of the juvenile court. He did not even know Matthew’s birthday, nor was he aware of any milestones in Matthew’s life. Joe did not call the social worker after Matthew was detained to request visits and only saw Matthew on one occasion, when he accompanied mother to a visit.
The social worker testified that Joe never asked for visitation with Matthew and that, although he said he had to work and could not visit, he never asked for any accommodations to fit his work schedule. Joe never inquired about Matthew’s welfare.
Mother testified that she supported Joe’s efforts to be involved in Matthew’s life. She also testified that: Joe only provided diapers once or twice, and money for formula a couple or three times; she did not know where Joe was after he was released from jail; there was a long period of time during which Joe did not see Matthew; and Matthew did not know the word “daddy” until he was in foster care. Mother testified that, when she showed Matthew a picture of Joe and told him Joe was his daddy, Matthew replied, “no way.”
The juvenile court denied presumed father status to Joe. It gave a lengthy explanation for its decision. It found that Joe had no bond with Matthew, had provided no assistance to mother during her pregnancy, did not pursue any legal action to obtain custody of Matthew, did not try to get his name placed on the birth certificate, had little contact with mother and Matthew even though he knew where they lived, and did not provide care for Matthew. The juvenile court did not find the testimony “particularly credible” that Joe referred to Matthew as his son with friends and family. It found that Joe provided token support, at best. Although Joe claimed in his Statement Regarding Parentage that he spent holidays and birthdays with Matthew, his testimony was the opposite. Even after Joe was brought into the proceedings, he did not ask for visits with Matthew and did not inquire as to his welfare. The juvenile court found it hard to believe that Joe was around as much as he claimed; if he had been, he would have realized that mother had serious issues that were adversely affecting Matthew’s well-being. The juvenile court found that Joe had virtually no relationship with Matthew and it was not in Matthew’s best interest for Joe to be offered reunification services.
DISCUSSION
I. Denial of Presumed Father Status
“In dependency cases, ‘fathers’ are divided into several categories, including natural and presumed. [Citation.] A natural father is one who has been determined to be the child’s biological father. [Citation.] ‘“Presumed fatherhood, for purposes of dependency proceedings, denotes one who ‘promptly comes forward and demonstrates a full commitment to... paternal responsibilities—emotional, financial, and otherwise[.]’”’ [Citation.] ‘A natural father can be a presumed father, but is not necessarily one; and a presumed father can be a natural father, but is not necessarily one.’ [Citation.] A presumed father is entitled to reunification services and custody of the child.” (In re Jose C. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 147, 161-162, fn. omitted.)
Joe claims that he qualified for presumed father status because he received Matthew into his home when he could and did the best he could to help take care of him. He claims he did not provide assistance to mother for prenatal care because he did not know it was his child until he was older. He had no reason to take legal action to obtain custody of Matthew because he was spending time with mother and was illiterate. He asserts that, before he went to jail, he provided for mother if she needed something.
“On appeal, we review the trial court’s determination under the substantial evidence standard: ‘[W]e are bound to uphold [the trial court’s judgment] so long as the record is free from prejudicial error and the judgment is supported by evidence which is “substantial, ” that is, of “‘ponderable legal significance, ’” “‘reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value....’” [Citations.]’ [Citation.] ‘Under that standard, we must consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference, and resolving conflicts in support of the judgment. [Citations.] [¶] It is not our task to weigh conflicts and disputes in the evidence; that is the province of the trier of fact. Our authority begins and ends with a determination as to whether, on the entire record, there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, in support of the judgment. Even in cases where the evidence is undisputed or uncontradicted, if two or more different inferences can reasonably be drawn from the evidence this court is without power to substitute its own inferences or deductions for those of the trier of fact, which must resolve such conflicting inferences in the absence of a rule of law specifying the inference to be drawn. We must accept as true all evidence and all reasonable inferences from the evidence tending to establish the correctness of the trial court’s findings and decision, resolving every conflict in favor of the judgment.’” (Charisma R. v. Kristina S. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 361, 368-369.)
Joe had the burden in the juvenile court of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the conditions required by Family Code section 7611 necessary to prove presumed father status. He had to demonstrate that he received Matthew into his home, and that he openly and publicly acknowledged paternity. (In re A.A. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 771, 782.)
We have summarized Joe’s involvement in Matthew’s life. The juvenile court correctly concluded that, based on Joe’s minimal involvement in Matthew’s life (ignoring him the vast majority of his life), the evidence was not sufficient to find him to be a presumed father.
II. Denial of Reunification Services
A decision to deny reunification services to a biological father is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. (In re Sarah C. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 964, 975.) Joe argues that even if the juvenile court correctly determined that he had not achieved presumed father status, the juvenile court abused its discretion when it determined that reunification services should not be offered to him. Joe claims that Matthew would benefit from services because he was the only father who wanted to be involved in Matthew’s life.
Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (a) provides, in part: “Except as provided in subdivision (b)... whenever a child is removed from a parent’s or guardian’s custody, the juvenile court shall order the social worker to provide child welfare services to the child and the child’s mother and statutorily presumed father or guardians. Upon a finding and declaration of paternity by the juvenile court..., the juvenile court may order services for the child and the biological father, if the court determines that the services will benefit the child.”
Joe argues that he could build a parent-child relationship with Matthew and, without that relationship, Matthew would be fatherless. Joe does not cite any authority to demonstrate how this would serve Matthew’s best interest particularly when Joe had no meaningful relationship with Matthew. (See In re Elijah V. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 576, 589.)
“The cases that state a child may be better off with his or her biological parent rather than with strangers do so when the biological parent has shown a sustained commitment to the child and parenting responsibilities.” (In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 192.) “The purpose of reunification services is to ‘reunite the family in a situation where the best interests of all concerned, the child, the parent and society as a whole, are well served.’ [Citation.] This purpose is furthered by providing services to the presumed father who has had at least some sort of familial relationship to the child before the juvenile court removed the child. This same purpose is not necessarily furthered in the case of a strictly biological father who has never had any kind of substantial familial relationship to the child. In such case, the provision of services does not ‘reunite’ a family but creates a new one.” (In re Sarah C., supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at p. 975.)
Joe did not show a sustained commitment to Matthew, to his parenting responsibilities, or to any kind of substantial familial relationship. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it found that Matthew would not benefit from an order to provide services to Joe.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HILL, P.J., WISEMAN, J.