Court Opinion

ID: 9404422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 22:03:23.148226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.781392
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/22/23 In re Jada B. CA2/3

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This
 opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                        SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                     DIVISION THREE

 In re Jada B., a Person Coming                              B315007
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                          Los Angeles County
 DEPARTMENT OF                                               Super. Ct. No.
 CHILDREN AND FAMILY                                         21CCJP01473
 SERVICES,

        Plaintiff and Respondent,

        v.

 JAMES T.,

        Objector and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Stephen C. Marpet, Judge Pro Tempore.
Affirmed.
      California Appellate Project and Vincent Uberti, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
            _______________________________________
                           INTRODUCTION

      James T. challenges the juvenile court’s denial of his
request for presumed father status over the minor, Jada B.,
under Family Code1 section 7611. James met Dominique B.
(mother) when she was three months pregnant with Jada.
Mother and Jada lived with James for approximately a year after
Jada was born. The child was declared a dependent of the
juvenile court after mother left her with James without making
an appropriate plan for the child’s ongoing care and supervision.
James applied for presumed father status, which the court
denied.
      James contends he met the criteria of section 7611,
subdivision (d), and that the court erred in denying his request.
Viewing all evidentiary conflicts and drawing all reasonable
inferences in support of the order, as we must, we conclude that
substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that James was
not a presumed father. We therefore affirm.

         PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

       In March 2021, mother called the Los Angeles County
Department of Children and Family Services (the Department)
and stated that she no longer wanted her baby, who was then one
year old, because her boyfriend broke up with her. She stated
that she was homeless and unable to care for the child and that
she had left the child with her ex-boyfriend, James, two days
prior. James was not the father of her child. The identity of the
father was unknown. Mother also claimed she has bipolar

1 All   undesignated statutory references are to the Family Code.

                                     2
disorder and schizophrenia. Although mother reported that she
had called from a pay phone, when a social worker called the
number back, a man named “K-Dog” answered.
       A social worker went to James’ home and spoke with James
and two of his sisters. His sister Brandy informed the social
worker that mother had stated that she was going to meet with
them to complete the paperwork for guardianship of Jada.
Brandy stated that she and James had been taking care of Jada
since she was a baby and that mother left Jada to get high on
crystal meth and to prostitute. Brandy reported that “K-Dog” was
mother’s pimp.
       The social worker informed them that mother had given
temporary custody of Jada to the Department and that she
therefore had to take custody of the child. James was very
emotional about Jada leaving. He stated that he had been caring
for Jada since she was born and provided for her needs. However,
he was not present at her birth and did not sign her birth
certificate. James was too emotional to continue the interview.
Brandy informed the social worker that Jada had not received
any shots or been to a doctor because mother had not obtained
Jada’s birth certificate or social security card.
       The social worker took Jada for a medical examination,
where it was revealed that she had a healing diaper rash. She
was otherwise medically cleared. The social worker observed that
Jada was a happy baby. She was “smiling, babble talking,
pointing, walking, throwing things then laughing and able to
drink and chew food.” She appeared healthy and was developing
appropriately for her age.
       The social worker later called Brandy to speak with James.
James was not present, but Brandy stated that James met

                                3
mother when mother was three months pregnant with Jada. She
claimed that mother did not want to deal with Jada because she
cried too much and would wake up James at night to feed Jada
when she cried. Brandy said that James did an amazing job with
Jada, built a relationship with her, and is her father. She also
mentioned that James has two other children who live in Las
Vegas and whose mother never allows James to see the children.
       On March 30, 2021, the Department filed a Welfare and
Institutions Code section 300 petition on Jada’s behalf alleging
that mother left the child in the care of her male companion
without making an appropriate plan for the child’s ongoing care
and supervision; mother’s whereabouts were unknown to the
male companion; and such failure to make an appropriate plan
for the child’s care and supervision by the mother endangers the
child’s physical health and safety and places the child at risk of
serious physical harm and damage.
       Prior to the detention hearing, the social worker received a
call from mother. Mother stated that she wanted Jada placed
with mother’s former foster mother. The social worker asked
mother why she gave custody of Jada to the Department. Mother
began to cry and stated that James had made her. He told her
that she had to because he only wanted to be with mother. She
further claimed that he tried to blackmail her by saying that if
she did not do it, he would not give her any of her clothes. Mother
claimed that James did not know how to care for Jada. He would
not give the child milk and would tell mother to give her water.
Mother stated that she did not want Jada back because she was
“tired of them threatening [her],” referring to James and his two
sisters.

                                 4
      Mother admitted that she is bipolar and is not currently on
medication but denied that she had schizophrenia. She stated
that she experienced domestic violence with James and that
James would hit her in front of Jada and that his sisters would
not help her. Mother stated that she did not discipline Jada
because she was too young, but that James would pick Jada up
by her onesie and slam her on the bed when the child was crying.
      Prior to the detention hearing, James filed a Judicial
Council form JV–505: Statement Regarding Parentage. In it, he
stated that he believed himself to be the child’s parent and
requested that the court enter a judgment of parentage. He
stated that Jada had lived with him from April 2020 to March
2021, that he had told “everyone I know” that Jada was his child,
and that he had participated in her daily care for a year, provided
“regular and consistent financial support,” and that Jada had
spent “frequent and regular” time with his family.
      At the detention hearing, the court found that a prima facie
case existed and ordered the child removed from the care,
custody, and control of mother. The Department asked the court
for an opportunity to interview mother further before a
determination was made as to whether James was the presumed
father. The court agreed to defer the paternity ruling and
instructed that James be given notice of the adjudication hearing.
      In May 2021, the Department filed an amended petition, in
which the Department added allegations that mother has a
history of illicit drug abuse, is a current user of marijuana and
methamphetamine, and is therefore incapable of providing
regular care for the child. It further alleged that mother has
mental and emotional problems, including a diagnosis of bipolar

                                5
disorder and schizophrenia for which she failed to participate in
treatment or receive medications.
       In its jurisdiction/disposition report, the Department
reported that Jada’s caregiver expressed concerns regarding her
development, behavior, and care prior to her placement. She
believed that the child had been molested due to certain
behaviors, including reaching for and grabbing others’ genitals,
pushing the heads of others towards her own genital area,
thrusting her hips and grunting, and trying to suck and lick the
fingers of adults. The caregiver also stated that when Jada was
first placed in her home, she was only crawling. The caregiver
worked with her on standing and taking steps and she was now
walking with confidence. The child was very quiet upon her
placement but now mimicked words and phrases. Although Jada
had made good progress, she was referred to a regional center to
rule out the possibility of prenatal exposure or developmental
disabilities.
       The report further stated that mother had contacted James
and informed him that she relocated to Las Vegas and had no
intention of returning. Although mother failed to respond to the
Department at that time, the Department had completed a
preliminary interview with mother prior to the detention hearing.
Mother’s explanation for initially calling the Department differed
from what she had previously stated. She did not acknowledge
that she no longer wanted to care for Jada or that there had been
a conflict between her and James. She claimed that her sister
had blackmailed her and said, “If you don’t call CPS I will.”
Mother claimed that her sister thought that James and his sister
could not take care of Jada, but mother refuted this claim.
Mother stated that she met James while she was walking and he

                                6
stopped her. They maintained communication throughout her
pregnancy while she lived in Las Vegas and he lived in
California.
       Mother moved to California after Jada was born to live
with James and his sister Brandy. She stated that, since that
time, James had helped care for Jada. According to mother, they
would take turns waking up and feeding Jada and changing her
diaper. When mother had things to do, James or his sister would
watch the baby. Mother stated that she wanted to reunify with
Jada after completing court ordered classes. As of the time of the
report, mother had participated in two monitored visits with
Jada and did not appear well bonded with the child, nor did she
appear to engage with or adequately supervise the child. At a
visit monitored by the caregiver, mother did not touch the child
or help care for her but seemed “consistently distracted and
fearful of [James] who was watching from nearby.”
       In May 2021, a social worker spoke with James. He
reported that he lived between the home of his mother,
grandmother, and sister. James had been raised by his
grandmother because his mother was physically abusive and had
untreated mental health and substance abuse issues. James
stated that he has two children who reside with their mother in
Lancaster. He stated that he can visit his children in Lancaster
but their mother does not allow him to take the kids anywhere or
visit them alone. He did not know why this was the case. James
stated that he would like to care for Jada, whom he considers
family, and stated that his family all love Jada. He denied any
knowledge of Jada’s biological father.
       James had been in a relationship with mother since she
was three months pregnant with Jada but did not know the

                                7
status of their relationship since she had disappeared and had
not been in contact with him since. James stated that he
regularly cared for Jada when mother had to run errands and
that they took turns caring for Jada when mother was home.
James stated that that mother seemed to need help caring for
Jada and that he “was doing the most stuff.” He claimed that he
knew how to care for kids. James stated that Jada “used to
always say daddy a lot” and that he taught her how to walk. He
denied knowledge of mother’s substance abuse history and
current use and could not recall whether she had a mental health
diagnosis or was being treated for mental health problems.
       A social worker also spoke with James’ grandmother,
Annette W., who raised him. She felt that James was capable of
caring for Jada and had no concerns about the child’s safety in
his care. She stated, “He loves that baby. . . . He hasn’t spoken to
me about wanting to be the father for the baby, but he really
raised that baby really.” Annette stated that she never saw
mother caring for Jada on her own and that James was always
caring for Jada regardless of mother’s presence.
       James’ sister, Ashley W., also spoke with a social worker.
She stated that James was staying with her after he fell out with
their other sister, Brandy. Ashley stated that mother frequently
left Jada with James without warning or stating when she would
return. James would often tell mother that she needed to pay
attention to her baby. Ashley witnessed James with the baby on
his chest, feeding and playing with her. She stated that James
was good with Jada.
       At the time of the report, James had met with the
Department regarding visitation, but a schedule remained
pending.

                                 8
       In a last minute information report filed before the
jurisdictional hearing, the Department informed the court of the
results of a multidisciplinary assessment team (MAT) report
concerning Jada. The child scored below the cutoff score in
multiple categories of the 16-month-old questionnaire, including
communication, fine motor, problem solving, and personal-social
abilities, which indicated that these were areas of significant
need and further assessment. The report recommended that Jada
be referred to a regional center.
       The report also conveyed the Department’s concerns about
James’ ability to provide care and supervision to Jada and his
relationship with mother. The Department noted that James is
the father to two children whose mother does not allow him to
have unmonitored contact with the children and that he claimed
that he does not know why he does not have custody or why his
contact must be supervised. The Department also noted that
James and his relatives claimed that he spent a significant
amount of time caring for Jada and that he taught her to walk
and talk, but Jada is nonverbal due to her age and was not
walking at the time of her placement. Jada also did not appear to
have had any medical care and lacked developmental skills
appropriate for her age.
       The Department also had concerns that James was possibly
mother’s pimp. Jada’s caretaker also expressed concerns that
James was mother’s pimp and that he had sexually abused the
child. The caretaker believed that, before entering care, the child
“was grossly abandoned to grow up on her own” and that “[s]he
had been abused and there was a lot of sexual behavior that was
a shock to [the caretaker] that was inappropriate for a child at
her age.” The caretaker further stated, “Besides never being

                                9
taken care of a doctor [sic], the child has been grossly abandoned
and used for whatever purpose. If this man says he was in charge
of this child, I would say he has done the lousiest job of any
parent. The child’s needs were grossly disregarded.” The
caretaker also recalled that, during a monitored visit with
mother, James appeared to be controlling mother from a
distance. Mother did not seem to be present and was looking over
at James, who was standing quite a distance away. At another
visit, mother was on the phone with a man (possibly James) and
it appeared to the child’s caretaker that “he wasn’t talking to the
child, he was talking loud to control the woman. He was saying,
‘Jada, we’re going to get you back. Mommy and daddy are going
to get you back.’ ” It seemed to the caretaker that James was
being manipulative.
       In June 2021, a social worker had received a text message
from James stating that he was moving back to Las Vegas and
asking if the case could be transferred there. The social worker
informed him that it could not be transferred and asked James to
have mother contact the Department. Mother informed the
Department that she and James would be living with James’
brother. She further stated that she was not visiting the child at
the time because James’ sister stole her money so she was not
able to buy anything for the child. The Department recommended
that the court not name James the presumed father of the child.
       At a hearing in July 2021, the court preliminarily found
that there was insufficient evidence to support James’ request for
presumed father status but continued the jurisdictional hearing
to give James an opportunity to brief the issue.
       In a further last minute information report to the court, the
Department stated that Jada was assessed by a regional center

                                10
and did not meet the criteria for services. However, at a well
child exam, she failed to meet the expectations for 18-month-olds
with respect to fine motor skills and communication. The medical
provider indicated that the child was developmentally delayed
and would need close monitoring.
       In August 2021, James filed his motion requesting
presumed father status. At the jurisdictional hearing, the court
sustained the amended petition, declared Jada a dependent of the
court, removed the child from parental custody, and ordered the
Department to provide family reunification services to mother.
With respect to the request for presumed father status, James’
counsel argued that Jada had lived with James for nine months
of the first year of her life and that James had cared for her as if
she were his biological daughter. Counsel argued that, although
James was not Jada’s biological father, he had stepped forward
and assumed the duties of fatherhood and was entitled to
presumed father status under the law. Counsel for Jada opposed
the request, arguing that James had relied largely on the
statements of his own family members, which she doubted, and
that he had made “hardly any effort” since Jada was detained in
March.
       The court noted that it had read the reports and listened to
the argument and was satisfied that James had not satisfied
section 7611, subdivision (d). The court stated: “Merely living
with them for a period of time is not enough. Since this case has
been filed, his actions have done nothing to [i]nure to the benefit
of this child. He hasn’t had ongoing continued contact with this
child. And I am finding that he is not a parent in this case.”
       James timely appealed.

                                11
                         DISCUSSION

1.    Substantial evidence supports the court’s conclusion
      that James is not the presumed father of Jada.
       James contends that the evidence clearly establishes that
he received Jada into his home and held her out as his child
within the meaning of section 7611, subdivision (d), and that he
was therefore entitled to presumed father status. He further
contends that this presumption was not rebutted. The
Department argues that James has failed to demonstrate that
the court erred as a matter of law in concluding that he was not
entitled to presumed father status under section 7611 and that
substantial evidence supports that James did not demonstrate a
sufficient commitment to paternal responsibilities to be afforded
the rights of a presumed father. We agree with the Department.
      1.1.   Relevant Law
       Dependency law distinguishes between “alleged,”
“biological,” and “presumed” fathers, which determines the extent
to which a father may participate in dependency proceedings and
be entitled to certain rights. (In re Mia M. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th
792, 806.) An alleged father is a man who may be a child’s father
but has not yet established either presumed father status or
biological paternity, and who therefore is not entitled to custody,
reunification services, or visitation. (In re A.H. (2022) 84
Cal.App.5th 340, 350.) A biological father is a man “ ‘who has
established his paternity but has not established his qualification
as a presumed parent.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) A court may order
reunification services for biological fathers “ ‘if they are in the
child’s best interest.’ ” (Ibid.) Finally, a presumed father is one
entitled to a presumption of paternity pursuant to section 7611,

                                12
and who therefore is entitled to “ ‘all the rights afforded to
parents in dependency proceedings, including standing, the
appointment of counsel, and reunification services.’ [Citation.]”
(Id. at p. 349.)
       Section 7611 sets out the requirements for presumed
parent status. A person is presumed to be a child’s father if he
“receives the child into [his] home and openly holds out the child
as [his] natural child.” (§ 7611, subd. (d).) “In determining
whether a man has ‘receiv[ed a] child into his home and openly
h[eld] out the child’ as his own [citation], courts have looked to
such factors as whether the man actively helped the mother in
prenatal care; whether he paid pregnancy and birth expenses
commensurate with his ability to do so; whether he promptly took
legal action to obtain custody of the child; whether he sought to
have his name placed on the birth certificate; whether and how
long he cared for the child; whether there is unequivocal evidence
that he had acknowledged the child; the number of people to
whom he had acknowledged the child; whether he provided for
the child after it no longer resided with him; whether, if the child
needed public benefits, he had pursued completion of the
requisite paperwork; and whether his care was merely incidental.
[Citations.]” (In re T.R. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1211 (T.R.);
W.S. v. S.T. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 132, 145 [same].)
       “ ‘In dependency proceedings . . . the purpose of section
7611 . . . is to determine whether the alleged father has
demonstrated a sufficient commitment to his parental
responsibilities to be afforded rights not afforded to natural
fathers—the rights to reunification services and custody of the
child.’ [Citation.] If an individual can qualify for presumed father
status based on his good deeds consistent with parental

                                13
responsibilities, it follows that under certain circumstances he
can be disqualified by repugnant conduct that is detrimental to
the child.” (T.R., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1212.)
      A man who claims entitlement to presumed father status
has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the
evidence the facts supporting his entitlement. (In re E.T. (2013)
217 Cal.App.4th 426, 437; T.R., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1210.) The presumption that arises under section 7611,
subdivision (d) “is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden
of proof and may be rebutted in an appropriate action only by
clear and convincing evidence.” (§ 7612, subd. (a).)
      On appeal, we review a trial court’s finding of presumed
parent status for substantial evidence. (County of Orange v. Cole
(2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 504, 509.) Under this standard, we may
reverse only if “ ‘the evidence compels a finding in favor of the
appellant as a matter of law.’ [Citations.]” (Estate of Herzog
(2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 894, 904, disapproved of on other grounds
in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1010, fn. 7.) We
are further directed “to presume that the trial court made all
factual findings necessary to support the judgment so long as
substantial evidence supports those findings.” (SFPP v.
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th
452, 462; Michael U. v. Jamie B. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 787, 792–793,
superseded by statute on another ground as stated in In re
Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 448.)
      1.2.   Analysis
      Although there are no factors that a court must consider in
determining whether substantial evidence supports that the
claimed father received the child into his home (W.S. v. S.T.,
supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 145), we will use the factors set forth

                                14
in T.R. as a framework for our analysis, to the extent they are
relevant.2
       The first four factors—“[1] whether the man actively helped
the mother in prenatal care; [2] whether he paid pregnancy and
birth expenses commensurate with his ability to do so; [3]
whether he promptly took legal action to obtain custody of the
child; [and] [4] whether he sought to have his name placed on the
birth certificate” (T.R., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1211)—do
not support a finding of presumed father status. James met
mother when she was three months pregnant and is not the
biological father of Jada. James and mother did not live together
during her pregnancy and there is no evidence that he provided
financial support to her during her pregnancy. James was not
present at Jada’s birth and did not sign her birth certificate.
Prior to the dependency proceeding, James took no action to place
his name on Jada’s birth certificate or to establish paternity by
legal action.
       We recognize that certain evidence concerning the fifth
factor—“whether and how long he cared for the child” (T.R.,
supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1211)—supports James’ claim. The
record supports that mother and Jada lived with James and his
sisters for approximately a year, from April 2020 to March 2021,
and that he provided care to the child during this time, even
when mother failed to do so.

2The eighth factor—“whether he provided for the child after [the child]
no longer resided with him” (T.R., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1211)—
does not appear relevant, as the child lived with James from shortly
after her birth until she was detained. Similarly, there is no evidence
concerning “whether, if the child needed public benefits, [James] had
pursued completion of the requisite paperwork.” (Ibid.)

                                  15
       However, there is also substantial evidence indicating that
the care Jada received from James during this period did not
demonstrate a commitment to her wellbeing. Mother informed
social workers that James had told her to relinquish Jada to the
Department because he said he only wanted to be with her. She
stated that James did not know how to care for Jada and told
mother to give Jada water rather than milk. Mother further
stated that James would discipline the child, who was then one
year old, by picking her up by her onesie and slamming her on
the bed.
       Prior to being detained, Jada had never seen a doctor or
received immunizations. Her caretaker reported that the child
was nonverbal, was not walking, and lacked developmental skills
appropriate for her age. Medical assessments performed when
the child was 16 and 18 months old concluded that she had
several areas of significant need with regards to her
development, which would require ongoing assessment. Her
caregiver expressed concerns that Jada had been severely
neglected and sexually abused based on concerning behaviors she
exhibited. The caregiver further stated that, if James was
responsible for Jada, he had done “the lousiest job of any parent.”
       With respect to the sixth factor, there is not “unequivocal
evidence” that James held Jada out as his own child. (T.R., supra,
132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1211.) Although James stated in the
Judicial Council form he filed that he told everyone he knew that
Jada was his child, his family knew that he was not Jada’s
biological father. One of his sisters stated that James was Jada’s
father, but his grandmother told the Department that James
never spoke to her about wanting to be Jada’s father. There is
very little evidence with respect to the seventh factor, which

                                16
concerns “the number of people to whom he had acknowledged
the child.” (Ibid.) Apart from the form James filed, there is
nothing in the record indicating that he held himself out as
Jada’s father to friends, acquaintances, or strangers.
       Finally, we consider whether James’ relationship with Jada
was “merely incidental” to his relationship with mother. (T.R.,
supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1211.) There is evidence that James
cared for Jada even when mother neglected the child and
disappeared for extended periods of time, which indicates that he
had a relationship with the child independent of his relationship
with mother. However, as we have discussed, there is also
substantial evidence that James only wanted a relationship with
mother and that he told mother to relinquish Jada to the
Department.3
       We conclude that there is substantial evidence to support
that, individually and collectively, the factors identified by the
T.R. court weigh against a finding of presumed father status
under section 7611, subdivision (d). The evidence supports that
James made no attempt to become Jada’s legal father prior to the
dependency proceeding, that he did not unequivocally hold her
out as his child, and that he did not “ ‘demonstrate[] a full
commitment to his paternal responsibilities—emotional,
financial, and otherwise[.]’ ” (In re Jerry P. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th
793, 801–802.) In reaching this conclusion, we reject James’
contention that we should disregard the statements of mother
and the caretaker, which he contends are not credible. “We may

3“The testimony of a single witness is sufficient to uphold a judgment
even if it is contradicted by other evidence, inconsistent or false as to
other portions.” (In re Frederick G. (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 353, 366.)

                                   17
not reweigh a judgment ‘supported by substantial evidence even
if substantial evidence to the contrary also exists.’ [Citation.]”
(City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District
(2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 110, 120.)
       James contends that we may only affirm on the grounds
articulated by the trial court—that is, that merely living with
mother and Jada was insufficient, that James did nothing to
benefit the child since the case was filed, and that he failed to
maintain contact. He claims that the Department did not raise
the so-called “negative allegations” against James at the hearing,
the court did not consider them, and we may not consider those
allegations on appeal.
       These contentions are factually and legally unsupported.
The Department identified negative allegations concerning
James in multiple reports and repeatedly recommended to the
court that James not be found the presumed father. The court
expressly stated that it considered the Department’s reports
before it issued its ruling on James’ request to be named
presumed father. Further, as we have stated, we “presume that
the trial court made all factual findings necessary to support the
judgment so long as substantial evidence supports those
findings.” (SFPP v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co.,
supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 462.) In other words, we are
required to uphold both the express and implied findings of the
court that are supported by substantial evidence.
       James further argues that the court’s consideration of his
failure to maintain contact with Jada after she was detained was

                                18
error.4 In support of this claim, James relies on In re L.L. (2017)
13 Cal.App.5th 1302, 1312 (L.L.), in which the court concluded
that, if an individual seeking presumed father status “showed he
met the requirements of section 7611, subdivision (d), at some
point in [the child’s] life, his subsequent failure to continue to
meet those requirements . . . did not rebut the presumption that
he is a presumed father under that statute.”
       However, the juvenile court in L.L. concluded that
substantial evidence supported that the biological father was the
presumed father of the child. (L.L., supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at
p. 1309.) Thus, the question before the Court of Appeal was
whether the evidence compelled the conclusion that the biological
father was not a presumed father as a matter of law. The court
found that substantial evidence supported that the biological
father had consistently visited the child for four and a half years,
successfully obtained joint legal custody and visitation of the
child, supported the child’s mother financially, and told family,
friends, and strangers that the child was his. (Id. at pp. 1309,
1313–1314.) It concluded that “the fact that [the biological father]
went to prison in 2011 and no longer maintained that
relationship with [the child] did not preclude him from qualifying
as a presumed parent under section 7611, subdivision (d), as of
the January 23, 2017 hearing.” (Id. at pp. 1314–1315.)

4As a preliminary matter, the court’s finding that James had not
maintained contact with the child was supported by substantial
evidence. Although James spoke with a social worker regarding
visitation, we find no evidence in the record that he ever visited Jada.
There is evidence that James was present during one of mother’s visits
with Jada, but the record does not indicate that he engaged with the
child. Rather, his presence appeared to intimidate and distract mother.

                                  19
       Thus, L.L. does not stand for the proposition that a court
errs when it considers whether an individual seeking presumed
father status maintained contact with the child. Rather, the court
in L.L. declined to hold that the absence of ongoing contact with
the child precludes a man from obtaining presumed father status
as a matter of law. Here, James’ failure to maintain contact with
Jada was clearly relevant to the court’s determination of whether
he had displayed a commitment to parental responsibilities,
particularly as other evidence weighed against a finding of
presumed father status. We perceive no error in the court’s
consideration of and reliance on this evidence.
       Finally, James suggests that evidence that he engaged in
negative conduct with respect to the child is only relevant in
determining whether the presumption of presumed father status
was rebutted, not whether he was entitled to the presumption in
the first instance. We disagree. “[T]he court may consider all the
circumstances when deciding whether the person demonstrated a
parental relationship by holding out the child as his or her own
and assuming responsibility for the child by receiving the child
into his or her home. [Citations.]” (R.M. v. T.A. (2015) 233
Cal.App.4th 760, 774, italics added.)
       Further, T.R., the case on which James relies in support of
this contention, undermines his claim. In T.R., the stepfather of
the child sought presumed father status. Although he did not
know the child until she was three years old, there was
“substantial evidence that he openly acknowledged [the child] as
his daughter, provided financial support, and received her in his
home.” (T.R., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1211.) However, the
court stated that these “positive factors cannot be viewed in a
vacuum,” and evidence that the stepfather had been convicted of

                               20
and imprisoned for molesting young girls and had also molested
the child “more than counterbalanced the factors favoring [his]
presumed father status.” (Id. at p. 1211.) The court concluded
that substantial evidence supported that the stepfather was not a
presumed father. (Id. at pp. 1211–1212.) It further concluded
that, even “[a]ssuming arguendo that the juvenile court should
have applied the section 7611, subdivision (d) presumption of
presumed father status, the error was harmless because the
presumption was more than amply rebutted.” (Id. at p. 1212.)
Thus, the stepfather’s misconduct was relevant both to the court’s
determination of whether a presumption of presumed father
status was merited in the first instance and to whether the
presumption was rebutted.
       Moreover, although the caretaker expressed concern that
the child may have been molested, the so-called “negative
allegations” in this case also pertained largely to the question of
whether James cared for Jada, one of the factors that courts
consider in determining whether the presumption has been
established. (T.R., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1211.) For
example, the child had significant developmental delays in
several areas, which her caretaker believed were the result of
severe neglect. We decline to hold that a court may only consider
evidence that the individual seeking presumed father status
neglected the child’s emotional and physical needs when
determining whether the presumption has been rebutted.
       In sum, having considered the evidence in its totality, we
cannot conclude that the court erred as a matter of law in finding
that James did not meet his burden of proof for establishing that
he was entitled to presumed father status under section 7611,
subdivision (d).

                                21
                           DISPOSITION

      The order denying James T. presumed father status is
affirmed.

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                           LAVIN, J.
WE CONCUR:

      EDMON, P. J.

      HEIDEL, J.*

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief
Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                   22