Adoption of K.M. CA4/3

I. INTRODUCTION

The issue in this appeal is whether the evidence compelled the trial court to conclude that Samuel, who alleges he is the biological father of K.M., qualifies as a presumed father under standards enunciated in Adoption of Kelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 816, and hence has the right to block the adoption of K.M. by Michael and Tasha. Because the evidence does not compel any such conclusion, we affirm the judgment finding Samuel’s consent is not necessary for the adoption.1 In overview, this case is a combination of Adoption of Michael H. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1043 [alleged father’s delay in asserting parental right between July and November compelled finding that he did not qualify under Kelsey S.] and Adoption of O.M. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 672 [the “father’s ability to demonstrate his commitment was impeded to a far greater extent by the predictable consequences of his own criminal activity”].) At the most crucial point in the timeline – when Samuel was first informed of Kathleen’s pregnancy – he was incarcerated and unable to commit to providing an income or stable home for the child. Under Michael H., that alone is sufficient to uphold the trial court’s judgment. And…