## Facts

- O.M. was born in September 2006; the biological parents were unmarried and never lived together.
- During the pregnancy, the father learned of the pregnancy, expressed happiness, and discussed raising the child with the mother.
- The father had a substantial criminal record and ongoing drug problems; after learning of the pregnancy he violated parole, was arrested, and spent months in custody.
- The father maintained some contact with the mother during custody but provided no material support during the pregnancy; after release he worked and had some contact with the mother’s family but still provided no material support.
- The mother decided to relinquish the child to prospective adoptive parents, who took physical custody immediately after birth.
- The father learned of the intended adoption, scheduled a legal appointment, and was arrested the day before on new drug and weapons charges; he was later sentenced to a lengthy prison term.
- The father filed a paternity action and opposed the adoption; he requested placement with his parents as guardians until his release.
- The adoptive parents filed to terminate the father’s parental rights and proceed with adoption; the trial court found he was not a presumed father, found he did not qualify for constitutional protection under Adoption of Kelsey S., terminated his rights, and granted the adoption.

## Issues

1. Whether the father qualified as a statutory presumed father under California’s Uniform Parentage Act.
2. Whether, despite lacking presumed-father status, the father was constitutionally entitled under Adoption of Kelsey S. to a parental fitness hearing because he demonstrated a full commitment to parental responsibilities or was unilaterally thwarted by the mother.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order terminating the father’s parental rights and granting the adoption petition.
- The father did not qualify as a statutory presumed father.
- The father failed to show the sustained, concrete “full commitment” to parental responsibilities required for Kelsey S. protection.
- The mother’s avoidance and decision to relinquish did not establish that her unilateral conduct primarily prevented the father from assuming parental responsibilities; the father’s criminal conduct and resulting incarceration were the principal impediments.
- The father was not constitutionally entitled to a Kelsey S.-type fitness hearing on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- A biological father who is not a statutory presumed father may be constitutionally protected from termination of parental rights if, promptly after learning of the pregnancy, he demonstrates a full commitment to parental responsibilities and is not shown unfit.
- “Full commitment” is evaluated from the father’s conduct before and after birth, including reasonable efforts at financial and emotional support, attempts to assume custody, and prompt legal action.
- Kelsey S. protection may apply when the mother’s unilateral conduct prevents an otherwise committed father from achieving presumed-father status, but it does not shield a father from consequences of his own misconduct.
- A court may consider an unwed father’s criminal activity and predictable incarceration when assessing whether he met the criteria for constitutional protection.
- Cases recognizing custody rights for incarcerated fathers are distinguishable where the father had already formed a parental relationship and arranged care before incarceration; absence of prior care or bonding weighs against constitutional protection.

## Conclusion

The adoption was upheld because the father neither achieved statutory presumed-father status nor proved the sustained, concrete commitment required for Kelsey S. constitutional protection, and his inability to assume parental responsibilities stemmed primarily from his own criminal conduct and incarceration rather than the mother’s unilateral interference.


Adoption of O.M., 169 Cal. App. 4th 672, 87 Cal. Rptr. 3d 135 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)