In re Jada B. CA2/3

Filed 6/22/23 In re Jada B. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This

opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re Jada B., a Person Coming B315007

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY Los Angeles County

DEPARTMENT OF Super. Ct. No.

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 21CCJP01473

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JAMES T.,

Objector and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of

Los Angeles County, Stephen C. Marpet, Judge Pro Tempore.

Affirmed.

California Appellate Project and Vincent Uberti, under

appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,

Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Deputy

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________________

INTRODUCTION

James T. challenges the juvenile court’s denial of his

request for presumed father status over the minor, Jada B.,

under Family Code1 section 7611. James met Dominique B.

(mother) when she was three months pregnant with Jada.

Mother and Jada lived with James for approximately a year after

Jada was born. The child was declared a dependent of the

juvenile court after mother left her with James without making

an appropriate plan for the child’s ongoing care and supervision.

James applied for presumed father status, which the court

denied.

James contends he met the criteria of section 7611,

subdivision (d), and that the court erred in denying his request.

Viewing all evidentiary conflicts and drawing all reasonable

inferences in support of the order, as we must, we conclude that

substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that James was

not a presumed father. We therefore affirm.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In March 2021, mother called the Los Angeles County

Department of Children and Family Services (the Department)

and stated that she no longer wanted her baby, who was then one

year old, because her boyfriend broke up with her. She stated

that she was homeless and unable to care for the child and that

she had left the child with her ex-boyfriend, James, two days

prior. James was not the father of her child. The identity of the

father was unknown. Mother also claimed she has bipolar

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Family Code.

2

disorder and schizophrenia. Although mother reported that she

had called from a pay phone, when a social worker called the

number back, a man named “K-Dog” answered.

A social worker went to James’ home and spoke with James

and two of his sisters. His sister Brandy informed the social

worker that mother had stated that she was going to meet with

them to complete the paperwork for guardianship of Jada.

Brandy stated that she and James had been taking care of Jada

since she was a baby and that mother left Jada to get high on

crystal meth and to prostitute. Brandy reported that “K-Dog” was

mother’s pimp.

The social worker informed them that mother had given

temporary custody of Jada to the Department and that she

therefore had to take custody of the child. James was very

emotional about Jada leaving. He stated that he had been caring

for Jada since she was born and provided for her needs. However,

he was not present at her birth and did not sign her birth

certificate. James was too emotional to continue the interview.

Brandy informed the social worker that Jada had not received

any shots or been to a doctor because mother had not obtained

Jada’s birth certificate or social security card.

The social worker took Jada for a medical examination,

where it was revealed that she had a healing diaper rash. She

was otherwise medically cleared. The social worker observed that

Jada was a happy baby. She was “smiling, babble talking,

pointing, walking, throwing things then laughing and able to

drink and chew food.” She appeared healthy and was developing

appropriately for her age.

The social worker later called Brandy to speak with James.

James was not present, but Brandy stated that James met

3

mother when mother was three months pregnant with Jada. She

claimed that mother did not want to deal with Jada because she

cried too much and would wake up James at night to feed Jada

when she cried. Brandy said that James did an amazing job with

Jada, built a relationship with her, and is her father. She also

mentioned that James has two other children who live in Las

Vegas and whose mother never allows James to see the children.

On March 30, 2021, the Department filed a Welfare and

Institutions Code section 300 petition on Jada’s behalf alleging

that mother left the child in the care of her male companion

without making an appropriate plan for the child’s ongoing care

and supervision; mother’s whereabouts were unknown to the

male companion; and such failure to make an appropriate plan

for the child’s care and supervision by the mother endangers the

child’s physical health and safety and places the child at risk of

serious physical harm and damage.

Prior to the detention hearing, the social worker received a

call from mother. Mother stated that she wanted Jada placed

with mother’s former foster mother. The social worker asked

mother why she gave custody of Jada to the Department. Mother

began to cry and stated that James had made her. He told her

that she had to because he only wanted to be with mother. She

further claimed that he tried to blackmail her by saying that if

she did not do it, he would not give her any of her clothes. Mother

claimed that James did not know how to care for Jada. He would

not give the child milk and would tell mother to give her water.

Mother stated that she did not want Jada back because she was

“tired of them threatening [her],” referring to James and his two

sisters.

4

Mother admitted that she is bipolar and is not currently on

medication but denied that she had schizophrenia. She stated

that she experienced domestic violence with James and that

James would hit her in front of Jada and that his sisters would

not help her. Mother stated that she did not discipline Jada

because she was too young, but that James would pick Jada up

by her onesie and slam her on the bed when the child was crying.

Prior to the detention hearing, James filed a Judicial

Council form JV–505: Statement Regarding Parentage. In it, he

stated that he believed himself to be the child’s parent and

requested that the court enter a judgment of parentage. He

stated that Jada had lived with him from April 2020 to March

2021, that he had told “everyone I know” that Jada was his child,

and that he had participated in her daily care for a year, provided

“regular and consistent financial support,” and that Jada had

spent “frequent and regular” time with his family.

At the detention hearing, the court found that a prima facie

case existed and ordered the child removed from the care,

custody, and control of mother. The Department asked the court

for an opportunity to interview mother further before a

determination was made as to whether James was the presumed

father. The court agreed to defer the paternity ruling and

instructed that James be given notice of the adjudication hearing.

In May 2021, the Department filed an amended petition, in

which the Department added allegations that mother has a

history of illicit drug abuse, is a current user of marijuana and

methamphetamine, and is therefore incapable of providing

regular care for the child. It further alleged that mother has

mental and emotional problems, including a diagnosis of bipolar

5

disorder and schizophrenia for which she failed to participate in

treatment or receive medications.

In its jurisdiction/disposition report, the Department

reported that Jada’s caregiver expressed concerns regarding her

development, behavior, and care prior to her placement. She

believed that the child had been molested due to certain

behaviors, including reaching for and grabbing others’ genitals,

pushing the heads of others towards her own genital area,

thrusting her hips and grunting, and trying to suck and lick the

fingers of adults. The caregiver also stated that when Jada was

first placed in her home, she was only crawling. The caregiver

worked with her on standing and taking steps and she was now

walking with confidence. The child was very quiet upon her

placement but now mimicked words and phrases. Although Jada

had made good progress, she was referred to a regional center to

rule out the possibility of prenatal exposure or developmental

disabilities.

The report further stated that mother had contacted James

and informed him that she relocated to Las Vegas and had no

intention of returning. Although mother failed to respond to the

Department at that time, the Department had completed a

preliminary interview with mother prior to the detention hearing.

Mother’s explanation for initially calling the Department differed

from what she had previously stated. She did not acknowledge

that she no longer wanted to care for Jada or that there had been

a conflict between her and James. She claimed that her sister

had blackmailed her and said, “If you don’t call CPS I will.”

Mother claimed that her sister thought that James and his sister

could not take care of Jada, but mother refuted this claim.

Mother stated that she met James while she was walking and he

6

stopped her. They maintained communication throughout her

pregnancy while she lived in Las Vegas and he lived in

California.

Mother moved to California after Jada was born to live

with James and his sister Brandy. She stated that, since that

time, James had helped care for Jada. According to mother, they

would take turns waking up and feeding Jada and changing her

diaper. When mother had things to do, James or his sister would

watch the baby. Mother stated that she wanted to reunify with

Jada after completing court ordered classes. As of the time of the

report, mother had participated in two monitored visits with

Jada and did not appear well bonded with the child, nor did she

appear to engage with or adequately supervise the child. At a

visit monitored by the caregiver, mother did not touch the child

or help care for her but seemed “consistently distracted and

fearful of [James] who was watching from nearby.”

In May 2021, a social worker spoke with James. He

reported that he lived between the home of his mother,

grandmother, and sister. James had been raised by his

grandmother because his mother was physically abusive and had

untreated mental health and substance abuse issues. James

stated that he has two children who reside with their mother in

Lancaster. He stated that he can visit his children in Lancaster

but their mother does not allow him to take the kids anywhere or

visit them alone. He did not know why this was the case. James

stated that he would like to care for Jada, whom he considers

family, and stated that his family all love Jada. He denied any

knowledge of Jada’s biological father.

James had been in a relationship with mother since she

was three months pregnant with Jada but did not know the

7

status of their relationship since she had disappeared and had

not been in contact with him since. James stated that he

regularly cared for Jada when mother had to run errands and

that they took turns caring for Jada when mother was home.

James stated that that mother seemed to need help caring for

Jada and that he “was doing the most stuff.” He claimed that he

knew how to care for kids. James stated that Jada “used to

always say daddy a lot” and that he taught her how to walk. He

denied knowledge of mother’s substance abuse history and

current use and could not recall whether she had a mental health

diagnosis or was being treated for mental health problems.

A social worker also spoke with James’ grandmother,

Annette W., who raised him. She felt that James was capable of

caring for Jada and had no concerns about the child’s safety in

his care. She stated, “He loves that baby. . . . He hasn’t spoken to

me about wanting to be the father for the baby, but he really

raised that baby really.” Annette stated that she never saw

mother caring for Jada on her own and that James was always

caring for Jada regardless of mother’s presence.

James’ sister, Ashley W., also spoke with a social worker.

She stated that James was staying with her after he fell out with

their other sister, Brandy. Ashley stated that mother frequently

left Jada with James without warning or stating when she would

return. James would often tell mother that she needed to pay

attention to her baby. Ashley witnessed James with the baby on

his chest, feeding and playing with her. She stated that James

was good with Jada.

At the time of the report, James had met with the

Department regarding visitation, but a schedule remained

pending.

8

In a last minute information report filed before the

jurisdictional hearing, the Department informed the court of the

results of a multidisciplinary assessment team (MAT) report

concerning Jada. The child scored below the cutoff score in

multiple categories of the 16-month-old questionnaire, including

communication, fine motor, problem solving, and personal-social

abilities, which indicated that these were areas of significant

need and further assessment. The report recommended that Jada

be referred to a regional center.

The report also conveyed the Department’s concerns about

James’ ability to provide care and supervision to Jada and his

relationship with mother. The Department noted that James is

the father to two children whose mother does not allow him to

have unmonitored contact with the children and that he claimed

that he does not know why he does not have custody or why his

contact must be supervised. The Department also noted that

James and his relatives claimed that he spent a significant

amount of time caring for Jada and that he taught her to walk

and talk, but Jada is nonverbal due to her age and was not

walking at the time of her placement. Jada also did not appear to

have had any medical care and lacked developmental skills

appropriate for her age.

The Department also had concerns that James was possibly

mother’s pimp. Jada’s caretaker also expressed concerns that

James was mother’s pimp and that he had sexually abused the

child. The caretaker believed that, before entering care, the child

“was grossly abandoned to grow up on her own” and that “[s]he

had been abused and there was a lot of sexual behavior that was

a shock to [the caretaker] that was inappropriate for a child at

her age.” The caretaker further stated, “Besides never being

9

taken care of a doctor [sic], the child has been grossly abandoned

and used for whatever purpose. If this man says he was in charge

of this child, I would say he has done the lousiest job of any

parent. The child’s needs were grossly disregarded.” The

caretaker also recalled that, during a monitored visit with

mother, James appeared to be controlling mother from a

distance. Mother did not seem to be present and was looking over

at James, who was standing quite a distance away. At another

visit, mother was on the phone with a man (possibly James) and

it appeared to the child’s caretaker that “he wasn’t talking to the

child, he was talking loud to control the woman. He was saying,

‘Jada, we’re going to get you back. Mommy and daddy are going

to get you back.’ ” It seemed to the caretaker that James was

being manipulative.

In June 2021, a social worker had received a text message

from James stating that he was moving back to Las Vegas and

asking if the case could be transferred there. The social worker

informed him that it could not be transferred and asked James to

have mother contact the Department. Mother informed the

Department that she and James would be living with James’

brother. She further stated that she was not visiting the child at

the time because James’ sister stole her money so she was not

able to buy anything for the child. The Department recommended

that the court not name James the presumed father of the child.

At a hearing in July 2021, the court preliminarily found

that there was insufficient evidence to support James’ request for

presumed father status but continued the jurisdictional hearing

to give James an opportunity to brief the issue.

In a further last minute information report to the court, the

Department stated that Jada was assessed by a regional center

10

and did not meet the criteria for services. However, at a well

child exam, she failed to meet the expectations for 18-month-olds

with respect to fine motor skills and communication. The medical

provider indicated that the child was developmentally delayed

and would need close monitoring.

In August 2021, James filed his motion requesting

presumed father status. At the jurisdictional hearing, the court

sustained the amended petition, declared Jada a dependent of the

court, removed the child from parental custody, and ordered the

Department to provide family reunification services to mother.

With respect to the request for presumed father status, James’

counsel argued that Jada had lived with James for nine months

of the first year of her life and that James had cared for her as if

she were his biological daughter. Counsel argued that, although

James was not Jada’s biological father, he had stepped forward

and assumed the duties of fatherhood and was entitled to

presumed father status under the law. Counsel for Jada opposed

the request, arguing that James had relied largely on the

statements of his own family members, which she doubted, and

that he had made “hardly any effort” since Jada was detained in

March.

The court noted that it had read the reports and listened to

the argument and was satisfied that James had not satisfied

section 7611, subdivision (d). The court stated: “Merely living

with them for a period of time is not enough. Since this case has

been filed, his actions have done nothing to [i]nure to the benefit

of this child. He hasn’t had ongoing continued contact with this

child. And I am finding that he is not a parent in this case.”

James timely appealed.

11

DISCUSSION

1. Substantial evidence supports the court’s conclusion

that James is not the presumed father of Jada.

James contends that the evidence clearly establishes that

he received Jada into his home and held her out as his child

within the meaning of section 7611, subdivision (d), and that he

was therefore entitled to presumed father status. He further

contends that this presumption was not rebutted. The

Department argues that James has failed to demonstrate that

the court erred as a matter of law in concluding that he was not

entitled to presumed father status under section 7611 and that

substantial evidence supports that James did not demonstrate a

sufficient commitment to paternal responsibilities to be afforded

the rights of a presumed father. We agree with the Department.

1.1. Relevant Law

Dependency law distinguishes between “alleged,”

“biological,” and “presumed” fathers, which determines the extent

to which a father may participate in dependency proceedings and

be entitled to certain rights. (In re Mia M. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th

792, 806.) An alleged father is a man who may be a child’s father

but has not yet established either presumed father status or

biological paternity, and who therefore is not entitled to custody,

reunification services, or visitation. (In re A.H. (2022) 84

Cal.App.5th 340, 350.) A biological father is a man “ ‘who has

established his paternity but has not established his qualification

as a presumed parent.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) A court may order

reunification services for biological fathers “ ‘if they are in the

child’s best interest.’ ” (Ibid.) Finally, a presumed father is one

entitled to a presumption of paternity pursuant to section 7611,

12

and who therefore is entitled to “ ‘all the rights afforded to

parents in dependency proceedings, including standing, the

appointment of counsel, and reunification services.’ [Citation.]”

(Id. at p. 349.)

Section 7611 sets out the requirements for presumed

parent status. A person is presumed to be a child’s father if he

“receives the child into [his] home and openly holds out the child

as [his] natural child.” (§ 7611, subd. (d).) “In determining

whether a man has ‘receiv[ed a] child into his home and openly

h[eld] out the child’ as his own [citation], courts have looked to

such factors as whether the man actively helped the mother in

prenatal care; whether he paid pregnancy and birth expenses

commensurate with his ability to do so; whether he promptly took

legal action to obtain custody of the child; whether he sought to

have his name placed on the birth certificate; whether and how

long he cared for the child; whether there is unequivocal evidence

that he had acknowledged the child; the number of people to

whom he had acknowledged the child; whether he provided for

the child after it no longer resided with him; whether, if the child

needed public benefits, he had pursued completion of the

requisite paperwork; and whether his care was merely incidental.

[Citations.]” (In re T.R. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1211 (T.R.);

W.S. v. S.T. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 132, 145 [same].)

“ ‘In dependency proceedings . . . the purpose of section

7611 . . . is to determine whether the alleged father has

demonstrated a sufficient commitment to his parental

responsibilities to be afforded rights not afforded to natural

fathers—the rights to reunification services and custody of the

child.’ [Citation.] If an individual can qualify for presumed father

status based on his good deeds consistent with parental

13

responsibilities, it follows that under certain circumstances he

can be disqualified by repugnant conduct that is detrimental to

the child.” (T.R., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1212.)

A man who claims entitlement to presumed father status

has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the

evidence the facts supporting his entitlement. (In re E.T. (2013)

217 Cal.App.4th 426, 437; T.R., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at

p. 1210.) The presumption that arises under section 7611,

subdivision (d) “is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden

of proof and may be rebutted in an appropriate action only by

clear and convincing evidence.” (§ 7612, subd. (a).)

On appeal, we review a trial court’s finding of presumed

parent status for substantial evidence. (County of Orange v. Cole

(2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 504, 509.) Under this standard, we may

reverse only if “ ‘the evidence compels a finding in favor of the

appellant as a matter of law.’ [Citations.]” (Estate of Herzog

(2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 894, 904, disapproved of on other grounds

in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1010, fn. 7.) We

are further directed “to presume that the trial court made all

factual findings necessary to support the judgment so long as

substantial evidence supports those findings.” (SFPP v.

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th

452, 462; Michael U. v. Jamie B. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 787, 792–793,

superseded by statute on another ground as stated in In re

Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 448.)

1.2. Analysis

Although there are no factors that a court must consider in

determining whether substantial evidence supports that the

claimed father received the child into his home (W.S. v. S.T.,

supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 145), we will use the factors set forth

14

in T.R. as a framework for our analysis, to the extent they are

relevant.2

The first four factors—“[1] whether the man actively helped

the mother in prenatal care; [2] whether he paid pregnancy and

birth expenses commensurate with his ability to do so; [3]

whether he promptly took legal action to obtain custody of the

child; [and] [4] whether he sought to have his name placed on the

birth certificate” (T.R., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1211)—do

not support a finding of presumed father status. James met

mother when she was three months pregnant and is not the

biological father of Jada. James and mother did not live together

during her pregnancy and there is no evidence that he provided

financial support to her during her pregnancy. James was not

present at Jada’s birth and did not sign her birth certificate.

Prior to the dependency proceeding, James took no action to place

his name on Jada’s birth certificate or to establish paternity by

legal action.

We recognize that certain evidence concerning the fifth

factor—“whether and how long he cared for the child” (T.R.,

supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1211)—supports James’ claim. The

record supports that mother and Jada lived with James and his

sisters for approximately a year, from April 2020 to March 2021,

and that he provided care to the child during this time, even

when mother failed to do so.

2The eighth factor—“whether he provided for the child after [the child]

no longer resided with him” (T.R., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1211)—

does not appear relevant, as the child lived with James from shortly

after her birth until she was detained. Similarly, there is no evidence

concerning “whether, if the child needed public benefits, [James] had

pursued completion of the requisite paperwork.” (Ibid.)

15

However, there is also substantial evidence indicating that

the care Jada received from James during this period did not

demonstrate a commitment to her wellbeing. Mother informed

social workers that James had told her to relinquish Jada to the

Department because he said he only wanted to be with her. She

stated that James did not know how to care for Jada and told

mother to give Jada water rather than milk. Mother further

stated that James would discipline the child, who was then one

year old, by picking her up by her onesie and slamming her on

the bed.

Prior to being detained, Jada had never seen a doctor or

received immunizations. Her caretaker reported that the child

was nonverbal, was not walking, and lacked developmental skills

appropriate for her age. Medical assessments performed when

the child was 16 and 18 months old concluded that she had

several areas of significant need with regards to her

development, which would require ongoing assessment. Her

caregiver expressed concerns that Jada had been severely

neglected and sexually abused based on concerning behaviors she

exhibited. The caregiver further stated that, if James was

responsible for Jada, he had done “the lousiest job of any parent.”

With respect to the sixth factor, there is not “unequivocal

evidence” that James held Jada out as his own child. (T.R., supra,

132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1211.) Although James stated in the

Judicial Council form he filed that he told everyone he knew that

Jada was his child, his family knew that he was not Jada’s

biological father. One of his sisters stated that James was Jada’s

father, but his grandmother told the Department that James

never spoke to her about wanting to be Jada’s father. There is

very little evidence with respect to the seventh factor, which

16

concerns “the number of people to whom he had acknowledged

the child.” (Ibid.) Apart from the form James filed, there is

nothing in the record indicating that he held himself out as

Jada’s father to friends, acquaintances, or strangers.

Finally, we consider whether James’ relationship with Jada

was “merely incidental” to his relationship with mother. (T.R.,

supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1211.) There is evidence that James

cared for Jada even when mother neglected the child and

disappeared for extended periods of time, which indicates that he

had a relationship with the child independent of his relationship

with mother. However, as we have discussed, there is also

substantial evidence that James only wanted a relationship with

mother and that he told mother to relinquish Jada to the

Department.3

We conclude that there is substantial evidence to support

that, individually and collectively, the factors identified by the

T.R. court weigh against a finding of presumed father status

under section 7611, subdivision (d). The evidence supports that

James made no attempt to become Jada’s legal father prior to the

dependency proceeding, that he did not unequivocally hold her

out as his child, and that he did not “ ‘demonstrate[] a full

commitment to his paternal responsibilities—emotional,

financial, and otherwise[.]’ ” (In re Jerry P. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th

793, 801–802.) In reaching this conclusion, we reject James’

contention that we should disregard the statements of mother

and the caretaker, which he contends are not credible. “We may

3“The testimony of a single witness is sufficient to uphold a judgment

even if it is contradicted by other evidence, inconsistent or false as to

other portions.” (In re Frederick G. (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 353, 366.)

17

not reweigh a judgment ‘supported by substantial evidence even

if substantial evidence to the contrary also exists.’ [Citation.]”

(City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District

(2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 110, 120.)

James contends that we may only affirm on the grounds

articulated by the trial court—that is, that merely living with

mother and Jada was insufficient, that James did nothing to

benefit the child since the case was filed, and that he failed to

maintain contact. He claims that the Department did not raise

the so-called “negative allegations” against James at the hearing,

the court did not consider them, and we may not consider those

allegations on appeal.

These contentions are factually and legally unsupported.

The Department identified negative allegations concerning

James in multiple reports and repeatedly recommended to the

court that James not be found the presumed father. The court

expressly stated that it considered the Department’s reports

before it issued its ruling on James’ request to be named

presumed father. Further, as we have stated, we “presume that

the trial court made all factual findings necessary to support the

judgment so long as substantial evidence supports those

findings.” (SFPP v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co.,

supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 462.) In other words, we are

required to uphold both the express and implied findings of the

court that are supported by substantial evidence.

James further argues that the court’s consideration of his

failure to maintain contact with Jada after she was detained was

18

error.4 In support of this claim, James relies on In re L.L. (2017)

13 Cal.App.5th 1302, 1312 (L.L.), in which the court concluded

that, if an individual seeking presumed father status “showed he

met the requirements of section 7611, subdivision (d), at some

point in [the child’s] life, his subsequent failure to continue to

meet those requirements . . . did not rebut the presumption that

he is a presumed father under that statute.”

However, the juvenile court in L.L. concluded that

substantial evidence supported that the biological father was the

presumed father of the child. (L.L., supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at

p. 1309.) Thus, the question before the Court of Appeal was

whether the evidence compelled the conclusion that the biological

father was not a presumed father as a matter of law. The court

found that substantial evidence supported that the biological

father had consistently visited the child for four and a half years,

successfully obtained joint legal custody and visitation of the

child, supported the child’s mother financially, and told family,

friends, and strangers that the child was his. (Id. at pp. 1309,

1313–1314.) It concluded that “the fact that [the biological father]

went to prison in 2011 and no longer maintained that

relationship with [the child] did not preclude him from qualifying

as a presumed parent under section 7611, subdivision (d), as of

the January 23, 2017 hearing.” (Id. at pp. 1314–1315.)

4As a preliminary matter, the court’s finding that James had not

maintained contact with the child was supported by substantial

evidence. Although James spoke with a social worker regarding

visitation, we find no evidence in the record that he ever visited Jada.

There is evidence that James was present during one of mother’s visits

with Jada, but the record does not indicate that he engaged with the

child. Rather, his presence appeared to intimidate and distract mother.

19

Thus, L.L. does not stand for the proposition that a court

errs when it considers whether an individual seeking presumed

father status maintained contact with the child. Rather, the court

in L.L. declined to hold that the absence of ongoing contact with

the child precludes a man from obtaining presumed father status

as a matter of law. Here, James’ failure to maintain contact with

Jada was clearly relevant to the court’s determination of whether

he had displayed a commitment to parental responsibilities,

particularly as other evidence weighed against a finding of

presumed father status. We perceive no error in the court’s

consideration of and reliance on this evidence.

Finally, James suggests that evidence that he engaged in

negative conduct with respect to the child is only relevant in

determining whether the presumption of presumed father status

was rebutted, not whether he was entitled to the presumption in

the first instance. We disagree. “[T]he court may consider all the

circumstances when deciding whether the person demonstrated a

parental relationship by holding out the child as his or her own

and assuming responsibility for the child by receiving the child

into his or her home. [Citations.]” (R.M. v. T.A. (2015) 233

Cal.App.4th 760, 774, italics added.)

Further, T.R., the case on which James relies in support of

this contention, undermines his claim. In T.R., the stepfather of

the child sought presumed father status. Although he did not

know the child until she was three years old, there was

“substantial evidence that he openly acknowledged [the child] as

his daughter, provided financial support, and received her in his

home.” (T.R., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1211.) However, the

court stated that these “positive factors cannot be viewed in a

vacuum,” and evidence that the stepfather had been convicted of

20

and imprisoned for molesting young girls and had also molested

the child “more than counterbalanced the factors favoring [his]

presumed father status.” (Id. at p. 1211.) The court concluded

that substantial evidence supported that the stepfather was not a

presumed father. (Id. at pp. 1211–1212.) It further concluded

that, even “[a]ssuming arguendo that the juvenile court should

have applied the section 7611, subdivision (d) presumption of

presumed father status, the error was harmless because the

presumption was more than amply rebutted.” (Id. at p. 1212.)

Thus, the stepfather’s misconduct was relevant both to the court’s

determination of whether a presumption of presumed father

status was merited in the first instance and to whether the

presumption was rebutted.

Moreover, although the caretaker expressed concern that

the child may have been molested, the so-called “negative

allegations” in this case also pertained largely to the question of

whether James cared for Jada, one of the factors that courts

consider in determining whether the presumption has been

established. (T.R., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1211.) For

example, the child had significant developmental delays in

several areas, which her caretaker believed were the result of

severe neglect. We decline to hold that a court may only consider

evidence that the individual seeking presumed father status

neglected the child’s emotional and physical needs when

determining whether the presumption has been rebutted.

In sum, having considered the evidence in its totality, we

cannot conclude that the court erred as a matter of law in finding

that James did not meet his burden of proof for establishing that

he was entitled to presumed father status under section 7611,

subdivision (d).

21

DISPOSITION

The order denying James T. presumed father status is

affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

LAVIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

EDMON, P. J.

HEIDEL, J.*

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief

Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

22