Adoption of T.K.

I. INTRODUCTION

In Adoption of Kelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 816 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 615 , 823 P.2d 1216 ] (Kelsey S.), the Supreme Court declared California’s statutory scheme precluding paternal rights for unwed fathers unconstitutional in one — but only one — situation: If applied to “an unwed father who has sufficiently and timely demonstrated a full commitment to his parental responsibilities.” (Id. at pp. 849-850, italics added.) From the precise language used by the court in Kelsey S. and as demonstrated by the holding in the later Supreme Court case of Adoption of Michael H. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1043 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 445 , 898 P.2d 891 ] (Michael H.), there are at least two elements of “full commitment”: (1) a demonstration of a willingness to financially support the child and (2) a willingness — at least to the extent she makes possible — to emotionally support the unwed mother during her pregnancy.

Here, we uphold the trial court’s conclusion appellant D.N. did not demonstrate the full commitment required to establish either the financial or emotional elements. He did not pay any of the mother’s (K.K.’s) substantial pregnancy expenses. He did not, as was within his…