Filed 2/14/22 In re Kyla G. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

In re KYLA G., a Person 

Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

 B308835

 (Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 

20LJJP00190B)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DONALD A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Michael C. Kelley, Judge. Affirmed.
2

Elizabeth Klippi, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel and Kimberly Roura, Senior Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

_________________________________

Donald A. appeals the juvenile court’s finding he was not 

the biological father of now-15-year-old Kyla G., contending it

was not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Dependency Petition and Detention Hearing

On March 24, 2020 the Los Angeles County Department of 

Children and Family Services (Department) filed a petition 

pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code section 300, 

subdivisions (a), (b), (i) and (j),1 on behalf of Kyla and her 

siblings, K.G. (now 17 years old), Anthony G. (now 12 years old), 

Harmony G. (now 11 years old) and Roland A. (now five years 

old). The petition identified Samuel G.2 as the presumed father 

of the four older children and Roland A., Sr., as the alleged father 

of the youngest. In the 23-count petition the Department alleged 

the children’s aunt and legal guardian, Lashonda W., had 

physically abused the children, was an abuser of drugs and

alcohol and had allowed her male companion to live in the home 

despite being an abuser of drugs and alcohol. In addition, one 

1 Statutory references are to this code unless otherwise 

stated.

2 The record reflects Samuel also goes by the name Anthony. 

For clarity, we refer to him as Samuel.
3

count of the petition alleged Samuel had a mental disability that 

limited his ability to provide appropriate care and supervision of 

the four older children.

The detention report included information regarding a 

2015 dependency proceeding in which the Department had filed a 

petition pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), alleging the 

children’s mother, Jenetta W., had failed to protect K.G., Kyla, 

Anthony and Harmony (Roland had not yet been born) from 

domestic violence between Jenetta and her boyfriend, 

Roland, Sr., and from Roland, Sr.’s drug abuse. The juvenile 

court sustained the petition, found Samuel to be the presumed 

father of the children and ultimately terminated jurisdiction, 

awarding joint legal custody of the children to Samuel and 

Jenetta with sole physical custody to Samuel.

In 2018 Jenetta and Roland, Sr., were killed in a car 

accident. In April 2019 Jenetta’s sister, Lashonda, was appointed 

legal guardian for all five children. According to the detention 

report Samuel suffers from an unspecified mental disability 

caused by a childhood injury, which appears to have been, at 

least in part, the basis for Lashonda’s appointment as the 

children’s legal guardian.

At the detention hearing on March 27, 2020 the court found 

a prima facie case for removing the children from Lashonda and 

ordered them placed in foster care. Samuel’s counsel informed 

the juvenile court of the prior case and the finding that Samuel 

was the presumed father of the four older children. The court 

stated that finding would remain in place. Kyla’s counsel advised 

the court, “Kyla is particularly distraught about the current 

situation and her mother having passed . . . . She is requesting

that the Department make all efforts they can to arrange 
4

whatever kind of visitation they can for [Samuel].” The court 

ordered monitored visitation between Samuel and Kyla, with the 

Department having discretion to liberalize visits.

2. Donald’s Parentage Claim and the Court’s Parentage 

Determination

In a July 17, 2020 jurisdiction/disposition report the 

Department informed the court it had been contacted on 

May 26, 2020 by Donald, who claimed he was Kyla’s biological

father. Donald explained Jenetta had told him he was Kyla’s 

father and they had discussed introducing Kyla to him. Donald 

said he was not involved in Kyla’s life because Roland, Sr., had 

not allowed it. Donald expressed his desire to obtain custody of 

Kyla. The Department recommended the court order a paternity 

test.

On August 3, 2020 Donald’s counsel filed a Judicial Council 

form JV-505 statement regarding parentage.3 The form indicated 

Donald did not know whether Kyla was his daughter and 

requested a DNA test. The form did not contain any additional 

information regarding Donald’s relationship to Jenetta or Kyla. 

At a hearing on the same date the court ordered DNA testing for 

Kyla and Donald and granted Donald monitored visitation with 

Kyla for two hours once per week.

In a last minute information filed September 2, 2020 the 

Department stated neither Donald nor Kyla had appeared for the 

scheduled genetic testing. Kyla told a Department social worker 

she did not want to know whether Donald was her biological 

father and would not submit to the test. In addition, Kyla’s foster 

3 The form was signed by Donald’s counsel but not by 

Donald.
5

parent was concerned the genetic testing could be detrimental to 

Kyla’s emotional well-being. The Department reported, “The 

information that [Donald] may be the minor’s father came as a 

shock to the child and the child is having a difficult time 

processing the information.” At a hearing on September 17, 2020 

Kyla’s counsel reiterated Kyla’s opposition to genetic testing and 

counsel expressed her own concern for Kyla’s mental health. The 

court ordered the parties to brief the issue of compelling DNA 

testing.

On September 30, 2020 Kyla filed a section 388 petition 

requesting the juvenile court modify its August 3, 2020 order for 

DNA testing. The petition explained Kyla had refused to 

participate in the genetic testing and had refused to attend visits 

with Donald because she had never met Donald and had no

relationship with him. 

Also on September 30, 2020 Donald moved to compel DNA 

testing as previously ordered. In an accompanying declaration 

Donald stated he had been incarcerated at the time of Kyla’s 

birth but had called Jenetta frequently to inquire about Kyla and

sent Jenetta letters and photographs for Kyla. When he was 

released in 2013, he met with Jenetta; and she said she would 

bring Kyla to meet him, but never did. Jenetta asked Donald not 

to visit Kyla because it would upset Roland, Sr. Donald was 

incarcerated again in 2015, but he continued to call and write to 

Jenetta. Donald was released in 2019 and learned Jenetta had 

passed away. He tried to locate Kyla at two prior addresses but 

did not find her. In May 2020 Donald learned from Jenetta’s 

cousin that Kyla was in foster care. Donald stated he wanted to 

build a relationship with Kyla and wanted a DNA test to confirm 

paternity. Donald had missed his two scheduled DNA test dates 
6

due to transportation issues. Kyla and the Department filed 

oppositions to Donald’s motion.

In a last minute information filed October 7, 2020 the 

Department reported Samuel, his mother and his sister were all 

shocked at Donald’s paternity claims. Samuel believed Kyla was 

his biological daughter. Samuel’s mother, Mary M., told the 

Department social worker that Samuel and Jenetta were living 

with her when Jenetta became pregnant with Kyla and she had 

never heard of Donald before this case. 

At a hearing on October 7, 2020 the court stated it believed 

paternity could be resolved without genetic testing but deferred 

ruling on the motion to compel. The court set the matter for a 

paternity hearing.

In advance of the hearing Kyla submitted a declaration 

stating her mother never told her anyone other than Samuel was 

her father. She said Samuel “has taken care of me all of my life, 

for as long as I can remember, and has always treated me as his

daughter.” Kyla had never met or heard of Donald until his 

appearance in this case, and she did not wish to have any 

relationship with him.

Samuel filed a declaration stating he had “lived with 

[Jenetta] during the conception of Kyla.” He believed Kyla is his 

biological daughter, and he had never previously heard of 

Donald. Mary also filed a declaration stating Jenetta had lived 

with her when she became pregnant with Kyla and she had no 

reason to believe Samuel was not Kyla’s biological father. 

Samuel’s sister filed a declaration stating she had never heard of 

Donald until this case and had no reason to believe Samuel was 

not Kyla’s biological father.
7

Donald filed another declaration on October 19, 2020, 

stating he began having a sexual relationship with Jenetta in 

2005. During that time Jenetta regularly stayed overnight at his 

house, and they often had unprotected sex. Donald claimed Kyla

resembled him and his other daughters. Jenetta had repeatedly 

told him Kyla was his daughter. Donald recounted an incident in 

2006 when Samuel approached Donald at a restaurant and said 

Samuel was Kyla’s father. Donald believed Samuel made that 

comment because he knew Donald had a sexual relationship with 

Jenetta.

On October 21, 2020 Donald filed a signed statement 

containing testimony he would give if he testified at the paternity 

hearing. The statements concerned Jenetta’s social media 

activity in 2015 and 2016. Donald stated that in August 2015 

Jenetta posted a picture of Donald with a caption that referred to

Donald as her “boo” (a slang term of affection, often a boyfriend 

or girlfriend) and said she was thinking about him. In November 

2015 another woman with whom Donald has a child posted a 

photograph of herself with Donald. Jenetta commented, “girl u 

just have him for the moment so just enjoy him while u can.” 

When the other woman asked who Jenetta was, Jenetta replied 

she was the mother of Donald’s child. In October 2016, when 

Donald was incarcerated, the other woman sent Jenetta a 

message asking for pictures of Kyla to give to Donald. Jenetta 

responded the same day with photographs of Kyla. Donald 

submitted screen shots of these messages with his statement.

The paternity hearing was held on October 22, 2020. At 

the outset counsel for the Department, Samuel and Kyla objected 

to Donald’s proffered testimony and social media screen shots on 

hearsay, foundation and authentication grounds. The juvenile 
8

court stated it would admit the testimony and exhibits but “give 

them appropriate weight and apply[] applicable law, including 

hearsay.” The parties did not present any live testimony but 

proceeded to argument based on the submitted declarations and 

evidence.

After hearing argument the court denied the motion to 

compel genetic testing and found Samuel to be Kyla’s biological 

father. The court specifically relied on the parentage 

questionnaire submitted by Jenetta in the 2015 dependency 

proceeding in which Jenetta had identified Samuel as Kyla’s 

father.4 In addition, the court pointed out, in that questionnaire

Jenetta had identified Samuel as Harmony’s father but indicated

another individual was her biological father. Jenetta did not 

identify a biological father for Kyla. The court stated, “This tells 

me that if in fact [Donald] was the bio father of [Kyla] that 

mother in her parentage questionnaire would have made the 

same distinction that she made in the case of the minor 

Harmony. This to me is strong evidence that mother did not 

believe anyone other than [Samuel] was the biological father to 

Kyla.” The court further found the social media statements, even 

if considered under a hearsay exception, lacked indicia of 

reliability and were made in an untrustworthy context,

4 The record on appeal does not contain the parentage 

questionnaire submitted in the 2015 proceeding. Although we 

granted Donald’s motion to augment the record with the 

questionnaire, the clerk of the superior court was unable to locate 

the 2015 case file. Regardless, Donald has not disputed, either in 

the juvenile court or on appeal, the juvenile court’s 

characterization of the statements in the 2015 parentage 

questionnaire. 
9

particularly when compared with the statements in the 2015 

parentage questionnaire that were made under oath.

The court found Donald was an alleged father only and 

relieved his counsel. Donald filed a notice of appeal on 

November 10, 2020.

3. The First Amended Petition, the Jurisdiction and 

Disposition Hearings and Termination of Jurisdiction5

The Department filed a first amended section 300 petition 

on October 5, 2020. At the jurisdiction hearing on November 18, 

2020 the juvenile court dismissed one count of the amended 

petition and sustained the remaining counts as interlineated. 

The disposition hearing was held on February 17, 2021. The 

court removed Kyla from Samuel and Lashonda and ordered 

family reunification services for Samuel. 

On June 18, 2021 Kyla was returned to Samuel’s custody, 

and on December 20, 2021, Kyla was released to Samuel and 

jurisdiction was terminated. 

DISCUSSION

1. The Parentage Findings Are Reviewable

As Donald recognizes in his opening brief, generally the

first appealable order in the dependency process is the disposition 

order. (In re A.O. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 145, 148; In re T.W.

(2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 723, 729; see Contra Costa County 

Children & Family Services Bureau v. Superior Court (2004) 

117 Cal.App.4th 111, 116 [“findings and orders made prior to the 

5 We take judicial notice of the juvenile court’s minute orders 

dated November 18, 2020, February 17, 2021, June 18, 2021 and 

December 20, 2021. (Evid. Code, §§ 459, 452, subd. (d).)
10

dispositional hearing, including those made at the jurisdictional 

hearing, may be reviewed on appeal from the dispositional order, 

which is the first appealable judgment in a dependency 

proceeding”].) Although Donald’s appeal may, therefore, have 

been premature because filed three months prior to the court’s 

disposition orders, Donald urges us to exercise our discretion 

pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.406(d) to deem the 

notice of appeal as filed immediately after the entry of the 

disposition orders. We agree it is appropriate to exercise that

discretion here. (See In re M.Z. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 53, 62 

[“[a]ssuming, without deciding, an order regarding presumed 

parent status is not directly appealable, we exercise our 

discretion and treat the notice of appeal as timely from the 

subsequent disposition order”].)

A second justiciability issue arises from the fact 

dependency jurisdiction has been terminated since Donald filed 

his notice of appeal. “As a general rule, an order terminating 

juvenile court jurisdiction renders an appeal from a previous 

order in the dependency proceedings moot. [Citation.] However, 

dismissal for mootness in such circumstances is not automatic, 

but ‘must be decided on a case-by-case basis.’” (In re C.C. (2009) 

172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1488.) Reviewing courts have exercised 

their discretion to consider an appeal of jurisdiction findings 

despite the subsequent termination of jurisdiction when the 

jurisdiction findings “could be prejudicial to the appellant or 

could impact the current or any future dependency proceedings” 

or “the finding[s] could have consequences for the appellant 

beyond jurisdiction.” (In re J.C. (2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 1, 4; 

accord, In re C.C., at p. 1488 [“‘[a]n issue is not moot if the 

purported error infects the outcome of subsequent proceedings’”]; 
11

cf. In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1493 [appellate court 

will not exercise discretion to hear a moot appeal unless “specific 

legal or practical consequence[s]” from the challenged finding can 

be identified].)

Neither party has discussed whether termination of 

jurisdiction affects this appeal. However, because the paternity 

determination has an obvious direct and lasting impact on 

Donald’s legal relationship to Kyla, we exercise our discretion to 

address the appeal on the merits. (See In re P.A. (2011) 

198 Cal.App.4th 974, 979 [termination of dependency jurisdiction 

did not render moot appeal regarding paternity determination 

because alleged father’s “rights were adversely affected by the 

court’s judgment of paternity . . . , which may have consequences 

for [alleged father] in the future”]; cf. In re Joshua C. (1994) 

24 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1548 [“[b]ecause the jurisdictional issues 

were actually litigated in the dependency proceeding, appellant is 

collaterally estopped from relitigating those issues in the family 

law court”].)

2. Substantial Evidence Supports the Juvenile Court’s 

Paternity Findings

The Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) (Fam. Code, § 7600 

et seq.), which governs parentage determinations (Elisa B. v. 

Superior Court (2005) 37 Cal.4th 108, 116), identifies “the parent 

and child relationship” as “the legal relationship existing between 

a child and the child’s natural or adoptive parents.” (Fam. Code, 

§ 7601, subd. (b); Elisa B., at p. 116.) In determining who 

qualifies as a natural parent, the juvenile courts recognize and 

differentiate among three categories of parents: an alleged 

parent, a genetic parent (referred to in the governing statutes as 

the “biological” parent) (see, e.g., Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5) and 
12

a presumed parent. (In re H.R. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1277, 

1283; accord, In re D.P. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 689, 695.)

An alleged parent, one whose maternity or paternity has 

not yet been established, or who has not achieved presumed 

parent status (In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 449, fn. 15; 

Francisco G. v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 586, 596), 

has a narrow range of rights in dependency proceedings, 

generally limited under the due process clause to notice of the 

proceedings so that he or she may appear and have the 

opportunity to challenge his or her parentage status. (In re D.P., 

supra, 240 Cal.App.4th at p. 695; In re J.H. (2011) 

198 Cal.App.4th 635, 644; In re O. S. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 

1402, 1408.) An alleged parent is not entitled to custody or 

reunification services. (In re H.R., supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 1283; In re D.A. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 811, 824.)

A genetic parent is one whose maternity or paternity has 

been established, but who has not achieved presumed parent 

status pursuant to Family Code section 7611. (In re Zacharia D., 

supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 449, fn. 15; In re H.R., supra, 

245 Cal.App.4th at p. 1283; see In re P.A., supra, 198 Cal.App.4th 

974, 980 [“[a] man’s status as biological father based on genetic 

testing does not entitle him to the rights or status of a presumed 

father”].) A genetic parent may have an opportunity for 

reunification services only if the court determines such services 

will benefit the child. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5, subd. (a).)

A presumed parent “ranks highest” of all three categories 

and enjoys a full panoply of rights attendant to parenthood, 

including entitlement to appointed counsel (Welf. & Inst. Code, 

§ 317, subd. (a)), custody (assuming the court has not made a 
13

detriment finding) and reunification services.6(In re H.R., supra, 

245 Cal.App.4th at p. 1283; In re D.P., supra, 240 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 695; see generally In re Nicholas H. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 56, 65

[presumed parent status is intended to preserve the important 

relationship created between parent and child when the alleged 

parent has treated that child as a son or daughter].) “A biological 

father can be a presumed father, but is not necessarily one; and a 

presumed father can be a biological father, but is not necessarily 

one.” (In re T.R. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1209.) 

“If the alleged father appears in court ‘and requests a 

judgment of parentage on form JV–505,’ the court shall 

determine: ‘(1) Whether that person is the biological parent of 

the child; and [¶] (2) Whether that person is the presumed parent 

of the child, if that finding is requested.’ (Cal. Rules of Court, 

rule 5.635(h), fn. omitted.) To determine parentage, the court 

may order genetic testing, or it may base the determination on 

testimony, declarations, or statements of the alleged parents.” 

(In re H.R., supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 1284; see also In re D.P., 

supra, 240 Cal.App.4th at p. 696 [determination of biological 

parentage may be made “either by ordering blood testing or based 

6 “Under Family Code section 7611, the factors bearing on 

presumed father status include: (1) whether the man and the 

child’s natural mother married or attempted to marry; 

(2) whether the couple was cohabitating; (3) whether the child’s 

birth certificate named the man as the father; (4) whether the 

man pays child support, either voluntarily or by court order; 

(5) whether the man receives the child into his home and openly 

holds out the child as his natural child; and [(6)] whether the 

man signed a voluntary declaration of paternity. (Fam.Code, 

§§ 7540, 7573, 7611, subds. (a)-(d).)” (In re H.R., supra,

245 Cal.App.4th at p. 1283, fn. 3.)
14

on testimony, declarations or statements by the mother and 

alleged father”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.635(e)(2), (3).)

We review a juvenile court’s parentage determination for 

substantial evidence. (In re M.Z., supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 64; 

In re H.R., supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 1284.) “We view the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the ruling, giving it the 

benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in 

support of the judgment. [Citation.] We defer to the trial court’s 

credibility resolutions and do not reweigh the evidence. 

[Citation.] If there is substantial evidence to support the ruling, 

it will not be disturbed on appeal even if the record can also 

support a different ruling.” (R.M. v. T.A. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 

760, 780.)

Donald argues the evidence supporting Samuel’s biological 

paternity was conclusory and speculative, particularly because 

Samuel’s declaration did not contain “any indication that Samuel 

and mother were in a committed sexual relationship during the 

time period when Kyla was conceived.” In contrast, Donald 

argues, he testified he had a sexual relationship with Jenetta 

during the relevant time period and Jenetta had told him Kyla 

was his daughter. While Donald is correct that Samuel’s 

declaration did not contain much detail, it did state he had lived 

with Jenetta during the time Kyla was conceived, which was 

corroborated by Samuel’s mother. That evidence, plus the 

uncontested fact that Samuel was the genetic father of two of 

Jenetta’s other children (the two children closest in age to Kyla), 

reasonably supports the inference that Samuel and Jenetta had a 

sexual relationship during the time Kyla was conceived. In 

addition, the juvenile court found much of Donald’s evidence to be 

unreliable, especially when weighed against the parentage 
15

questionnaire submitted by Jenetta in the 2015 proceeding. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial 

court’s ruling and deferring to its resolution of conflicting 

evidence, substantial evidence supports the finding Samuel was 

Kyla’s biological father.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s paternity finding is affirmed.

PERLUSS, P.J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.