Other Cases Affecting Children

Adoption of Aaron H. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 786 [101 Cal.Rptr.2d 45]. Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4.

On Sept. 29, 1998, the child was born to a teenage mother who put him up for adoption. Approximately two and half months after the child was born, the teenage mother's aunt and uncle filed for adoption with the support of the mother. Richard M. was named as the child's father was named in the adoption petition. On December 24, 1998, the attorney for the aunt and uncle serviced notice on Richard M. stating that he might be the natural father of the child who had been placed for adoption, and that any action on his part must be brought within 30 days of the service of the notice. Thirty days passed with no action from Richard M. On February 8, 1999, the attorney for the aunt and uncle obtained an ex parte order stating that the alleged natural father is Richard M., that further notice to and consent of the alleged father was not necessary, and that the alleged natural father had no parental rights.

However, on February 1, 1999, Richard M. filed a complaint to establish a parental relationship. He claimed that he had believed the letter of notice to be an error (because the mother was informing people that someone else was the father) until he received a second notice from the adoptions office dated January 25, 1999. On February 25, 1999, Richard M. filed a petition to consolidate the adoption proceedings with his complaint, a motion to set aside the February 8 order, and requested a blood test to determine paternity. The parties voluntarily agreed to blood tests, and the results showed Richard M. as the biological father of the child. The court then denied the father's request to consolidate the actions, and set a hearing to address the father's request to vacate the February 8 order terminating parental rights. At the subsequent hearing, the trial court denied Richard M.'s motion to set aside the order terminating his parental rights and therefore dismissed his complaint and the petition to establish his parental relationship and rights. Richard M. appealed.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the trial court. The trial court had analyzed the motion to set aside the order terminating the father's parental rights under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b). Section 473(b) requires the party seeking relief the duty to do so with reasonable diligence and stipulates the trial court's determination will be reversed only for abuse of discretion. In this case, the trial court found that because of the notice set forth in attorney's letter to Richard M., he knew he had to bring an action within 30 days and that failure to do so might result in the termination of his parental rights. Richard M. filed his complaint 39 days after the notice was served, and provided no credible reason that explained the delay. On appeal, Richard M. did not contend the legal or factual accuracy of the trial court's comments about Richard M.'s lack of credibility regarding his failure to act. Because the father had failed to act in a timely manner and there was no justifiable reason for this delay, the trial court denied the motion to set aside its previous order terminating the father's parental rights. The appellate court determined that the trial court had not abused its discretion and affirmed its decision.