## Facts

- Kari S. gave birth to Kelsey on May 18, 1988; Rickie M. was the undisputed biological father, and Rickie and Kari were not married.
- Before and after the birth, Kari planned to place the child for adoption; Rickie objected and sought to raise the child.
- Two days after the birth, Rickie filed a superior court action to establish paternity and obtain custody.
- The court initially issued an order temporarily awarding Rickie custody, staying adoption proceedings, and barring contact between the child and the prospective adoptive parents.
- Steven and Suzanne A. filed an adoption petition asserting only the mother’s consent was required because Rickie was not a statutory “presumed father.”
- The trial court modified temporary orders: Kari received temporary custody and was ordered to reside with the child in a shelter; visitation/contact restrictions were imposed, later allowing Rickie supervised visitation and the prospective adoptive parents unsupervised visitation.
- The parties stipulated Rickie was the child’s natural father, but the trial court found he did not qualify as a statutory presumed father.
- The trial court held hearings and terminated Rickie’s parental rights based on the child’s best interests under a preponderance standard, allowing the adoption to proceed.

## Issues

1. Whether a biological father of a child born out of wedlock who promptly and diligently seeks custody and assumes parental responsibilities may be denied the right to withhold consent to an adoption by third parties absent any finding of unfitness.
2. Whether applying California’s statutory scheme to permit termination of such a father’s parental rights on a best-interests finding—when the mother’s unilateral actions prevent him from attaining presumed-father status—violates due process and equal protection.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment terminating the father’s parental rights and remanded.
- The Court held that, as applied, constitutional due process and equal protection require allowing a committed unwed biological father to withhold consent to adoption.
- The Court ruled that termination of such a father’s parental rights cannot rest solely on a best-interests finding; the state must prove the father is unfit under the standard governing termination of presumed parents.

## Legal Principles

- A biological father has a constitutionally protected opportunity to develop a parental relationship; constitutional protection depends on whether he promptly comes forward and demonstrates a full commitment to parental responsibilities.
- When an unwed biological father promptly seeks custody and shows full commitment, and circumstances outside his control (including the mother’s unilateral choices) prevent him from meeting statutory presumed-father criteria, the state must treat him like a presumed father for adoption-consent and termination purposes.
- For such a father, parental rights may not be terminated based only on a comparative best-interests test proved by a preponderance of the evidence; termination requires a showing of unfitness under the applicable statutory standard.
- The rule is limited: it does not confer full parental rights on all biological fathers, only on those who timely and meaningfully commit to parenting and are thwarted from formal presumed-father status by forces beyond their control.

## Conclusion

The court held that a fit, committed unwed biological father who promptly seeks to assume parental responsibilities may not have his parental rights ended, and his child adopted by third parties, based solely on a best-interests determination when the mother’s unilateral actions prevented him from attaining presumed-father status; unfitness must be shown to terminate his rights.


Adoption of Kelsey S., 1 Cal. 4th 816 (Cal. 1992)