In a recently decided California case, it was held where an alleged father signed an out-of-state voluntary acknowledgment of paternity in state where child was born, the juvenile court violated his constitutional rights to equal protection and full faith and credit principles by not recognizing him as a presumed father entitled to reunification services as a matter of right solely because declaration of parentage was executed out-of-state and not in California.
The Court further stated that an error was committed because the Court required alleged father to bring a Welfare and Institutions Code Sec. 388 petition and make a "best interest" showing to receive reunification services where mother at the commencement of the proceedings identified him as child’s father and advised the court there was an out-of-state paternity judgment and child support order, there was never any reunification period within which alleged father could have requested presumed father status because mother was denied reunification services, alleged father appeared and claimed presumed father status shortly after county agency located him and notified him of the proceedings, and his appearance was within the 12-month reunification period for a minor child’s age.
Furthermore, Notices under Indian Child Welfare Act were held to be inadequate where agency failed to advise court that it did not receive any response from a second notice to one of the tribes linked to father; and had sent notice to another tribe linked to father at the wrong address. See, In re Mary G.(filed May 24, 2007), For Full text: http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0507%2FD049027.
