In Re Sarah H.

The father (henceforth James) of two minors appeals from a judgment declaring them free of his custody and control. (Civ. Code, § 232.) The proceeding was initiated by the minors’ maternal grandparents who have cared for the children since the death of their mother in May 1975. The mother’s death was caused by a beating administered by James in the presence of the children, who were then aged three and one.

James was arrested on May 27, 1975, and released on bail. He had been drinking for several hours prior to the homicide and assertedly had no recollection of the events of the evening. On September 4, the juvenile court denied him visitation of the children pending resolution of the homicide charge, and transferred custody to the grandparents. On September 13, James was arrested for another homicide following a shooting in a Plumas County bar; he was convicted by a jury of involuntary manslaughter and use of a deadly weapon on that charge and conviction was affirmed on appeal by this court. (3 Crim. 8707.) He was also convicted of voluntary manslaughter regarding the death of his wife after a plea of nolo contendere. He was incarcerated at the time of the trial…

I concur in the result. The trial court did what it thought best in the context of the present state of the law. It is the state of the law, when viewed from a constitutional perspective, which concerns me.

*331 Two principal considerations cause me to concur. First, the trial judge applied the appropriate standard of proof—beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. That standard of proof is required by the importance of the interest with which we deal—the interest of the father in a continued relation with his children, and the interest of the children in continuing a relationship with the father. (See Meyer v. Nebraska (1922) 262 U.S. 390 [ 67 L.Ed. 1042 , 43 S.Ct. 625 , 29 A.L.R. 1446 ]; Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) 381 U.S. 479 [ 14 L.Ed.2d 510 , 85 S.Ct. 1678 ]; Alsager v. District Court of Polk Cty., Iowa (S.D.Iowa (1975) 406 F.Supp. 10 ).) Few interests in life can be more dear. Second, the trial court was well advised by the various parties who had an interest in the outcome of this proceeding. James and his new wife were present and testified. His new wife, a widow of many years acquaintance, is described by exhibits found in the record as a moral and devoted…

Quin Denvir, State Public Defender, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Judith W. Allen, Deputy State Public Defender, for Objector and Appellant.

Norris M. Goodwin for Petitioners and Respondents.

OPINION

PARAS, J.

The father (henceforth James) of two minors appeals from a judgment declaring them free of his custody and control. (Civ. Code, § 232.) The proceeding was initiated by the minors' maternal grandparents who have cared for the children since the death of their mother in May 1975. The mother's death was caused by a beating administered by James in the presence of the children, who were then aged three and one. [1]

James was arrested on May 27, 1975, and released on bail. He had been drinking for several hours prior to the homicide and assertedly had no recollection of the events of the evening. On September 4, the juvenile court denied him visitation of the children pending resolution of the homicide charge, and transferred custody to the grandparents. On September 13, James was arrested for another homicide following a shooting in a Plumas County bar; he was convicted by a jury of involuntary manslaughter and use of a deadly weapon on that charge and…