BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2020
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 23, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 2020 (Fletcher) - As Amended: March 15, 2010
As Proposed to Be Amended
SUBJECT : ADOPTION
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD SEVERAL CHANGES BE MADE TO THE ADOPTION
PROCESS TO ELIMINATE CONFLICTS BETWEEN STATUTES AND BETWEEN CASE
LAW AND STATUTE?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This is the annual adoption bill sponsored by the Academy of
California Adoption Lawyers. According to the author, this
bill, which makes three changes to the law, will reduce both
costs for adoptive parents and court time by correcting
inconsistent and unclear provisions of law. First, the bill
creates a consistent procedural framework for establishing and
terminating the rights of presumed and alleged fathers, making
California's statutory structure consistent with case law's
recognition of expanded rights for alleged parents. Second, the
bill allows courts to dispense with a hearing and make the order
ex parte when terminating parental rights of parents who are
unknown, cannot be located or who have otherwise waived their
right to contest the proceeding,. Finally, the bill eliminates
a conflict in existing law by allowing a birth parent in an
agency adoption to choose a prospective adoptive family, even if
a relative would also be a suitable placement. There is no
opposition to these changes.
SUMMARY : Makes changes to adoption processes and adoptive
placement considerations. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that the same process be used to determine the
existence of a parent-child relationship, regardless of
whether the child has a presumed parent or not, including the
same time period for bringing the action. This process does
not apply if the conclusive presumption of paternity for a
AB 2020
Page 2
child of a marriage exists.
2)Allows the court to dispense with a hearing to terminate
parental rights and may instead issue an ex parte order
terminating those rights in the following situations:
a) The identity or whereabouts of the father are unknown.
b) The alleged father has validly executed a waiver of the
right to notice or a waiver or denial of paternity.
c) The alleged father has been served with written notice
of his alleged paternity and the proposed adoption and has
failed to bring an action to determine the existence of a
parent-child relationship, as required.
3)Exempts, from the requirement that the social services
department or licensed adoption agency must consider placing
an adoptive child with a relative or siblings unless it is not
in the child's best interest, a child who is subject to an
agency adoption in which the birth parents have named the
prospective adoptive parent. Provides that, except as
required by the Indian Child Welfare Act, the refusal of a
birth parent to place an adoptive child with relatives or
siblings is a sufficient basis for finding that such a
placement in not in the best interests of the child. Provides
that this provision should not be construed to require a child
who has been placed for adoption to be removed from the
adoptive home in order to be placed with siblings or other
relatives.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Defines a man as a presumed father if, among other things:
(a) he has signed a declaration of paternity; (c) he was
married to the child's mother and the child was born within
300 days of the marriage; (d) he attempted to marry the
child's mother; or (e) he holds the child out as his own.
Requires that these presumptions be applied gender neutrally.
(Family Code Sections 7611, 7650; Elisa B. V. Superior Court
(2005) 37 Cal.4th 108. All further statutory references are
to the Family Code.)
2)Provides that, for a child with a presumed father, a child,
the child's natural mother or the presumed father may bring an
action to determine the existence of a father-child
relationship. Provides a separate process to determine the
AB 2020
Page 3
existence of a father-child relationship for a child who does
not have a presumed father or whose presumed father is
deceased. (Sections 7630-31)
3)Requires that an action to terminate the parental rights of a
father must be set for hearing not more than 45 days after the
petition to terminate is filed. (Section 7667.)
4)Requires that that if a child is being considered for adoption
by the social service department or a licensed adoption
agency, the department or agency must first consider placement
in the home of a relative, as specified. Exempts from this
provision a child who has been adjudged a dependent of the
juvenile court, for which there are relative placement
requirements under the Welfare & Institutions Code. (Section
8710.)
COMMENTS : This is the Academy of California Adoption Lawyers'
annual adoption bill. According to the author, this bill will
reduce both costs for adoptive parents and court time by
correcting inconsistent and unclear provisions of law.
Streamlining the Processes for Determining Parent-Child
Relationships for Alleged and Presumed Parents : The bill seeks
to treat alleged and presumed parents the same for purposes of
determining the existence of a parent-child relationship. A man
is presumed to be a child's legal father in several scenarios.
A man is a presumed father if he has signed a declaration of
paternity or attempted to marry the child's mother. He may also
be a presumed father if he has received a child into his home
and openly held out the child as his own. (Section 7611.)
While the statutory scheme generally refers to presumed fathers,
the presumptions apply equally to presumed mothers. (See, e.g.,
Elisa B. V. Superior Court (2005) 37 Cal.4th 108.) An alleged
father is generally a biological father who does not qualify as
a presumed father.
Existing law provides slightly different statutory schemes for
alleged and presumed fathers to seek legal recognition of their
relationship with the child or to terminate their parental
rights. However, the California Supreme Court has held that
alleged fathers have a constitutional right to gain custody of
their children, even if they do not satisfy one of the
conditions necessary to be recognized as a presumed father. In
that case the court held that the statutory scheme that
AB 2020
Page 4
required, for purposes of adoption, consent of mothers and
presumed fathers, but allowed for termination of parental rights
of alleged fathers on the basis of the child's best interests,
violated the alleged father's constitutional rights. (Adoption
of Kelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 816.)
This bill eliminates that distinction and, for procedural
purposes, treats alleged parents like presumed parents. This
change makes California's statutory structure consistent with
case law's expanded rights of alleged parents and creates a
consistent procedural framework for establishing and terminating
the rights of presumed and alleged fathers.
Unproductive Hearing No Longer Mandated : Existing law requires
that a petition to terminate parental rights must be set for a
hearing. However, there are instances when such a hearing is
effectively meaningless because it is impossible for the parent
to participate in the hearing. For example, if the identity of
the father is unknown, there are steps that must be taken to try
and identify the father or any possible father. However, if,
after inquiry, the father remains unknown, the court must enter
an order terminating parental rights. (Section 7665.)
Alternatively, if a father is known, but his whereabouts are
unknown, the court may dispense with notice. (Section 7666.)
Similarly, no notice is required for an alleged father who has
validly executed a denial of paternity or a waiver of the right
to notice of the action to terminate parental rights. Finally,
no further notice of proceedings is required for an alleged
father who, in response to a required notice of his alleged
paternity and of a proposed adoption, fails to bring the
required action to establish a parent-child relationship
pursuant to Section 7630 within 30 days.
In all of these situations, the alleged father will not receive
notice of the termination hearing, since, for the various
reasons discussed above, no further notice is required. Thus,
the father or alleged father will not receive notice of the
hearing to terminate parental rights and, as a result, cannot
possibly appear at the hearing. Neither the father nor the
court receives any benefit from holding these hearings and it is
an unnecessary expenditure of scarce judicial resources. Thus,
this bill correctly allows the court to dispense with the
hearing and issue an ex parte order terminating parental rights
in cases where the alleged father will not have notice of the
proceeding.
AB 2020
Page 5
Ensuring a Birth Parent's Freedom to Choose Adoptive Parents in
Appropriate Situations : This bill also seeks to fix a conflict
in existing law regarding placement of an adoptive child. In an
agency adoption, a birth parent may relinquish the child to the
adoption agency and the agency may choose an adoptive family for
placement. Alternatively, the birth parent can choose the
adoptive family and name them in the relinquishment. In this
case, the agency must place the child with the named adoptive
parents. If that placement is not available for any reason, the
agency must give the birth parent the opportunity to rescind the
relinquishment or choose an alternative placement. (Section
8700.)
Existing law also requires that before an adoptive child can be
placed, the adoption agency should consider placement of the
child in the home of a relative. This is in direct conflict
with the provision that requires the agency to honor an adoptive
parent's directive in the relinquishment.
To correct that inconsistency, this bill specifically exempts,
from the requirement to first consider relative placement, a
relinquishment to specific birth parents. The bill also
provides that, except as required by the Indian Child Welfare
Act, a birth parent's refusal to place a child with relatives or
siblings is sufficient grounds for the agency to find that such
a placement is not in the child's best interests. The sponsor
believes these changes should help ensure that agencies can
comply with the law and will help minimize the instances birth
parents lie to adoption agencies to prevent an outcome they do
not want.
Proposed Amendment : Given that this provision is limited to
agency adoptions, the additional exemption in the bill for
independent adoptions is unnecessary. As a result, the author
has graciously agreed to remove the reference to independent
adoptions:
On page 9, line 15, delete "or Section 8801"
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Academy of California Adoption Lawyers (sponsor)
AB 2020
Page 6
Family Law Section of the State Bar
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334