C.A. Says ‘Creepy’ Father Cannot Block Adoption

Thursday, October 8, 2015

Page 1

C.A. Says ‘Creepy’ Father Cannot Block Adoption

Cyberstalking, Lack of Support Held Grounds to Reject Paternal Rights Claim

By a MetNews Staff Writer

A man who apparently hacked into his ex-girlfriend’s cell phone to keep tabs on her after their final breakup, and who failed to support her financially during her pregnancy, did not make the “full commitment” required of unwed fathers to assert constitutional rights to parentage, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.

Crediting the woman’s description of her ex-lover as “creepy,” Justice William Bedsworth said the man, identified in the opinion as D.N., failed to establish that he met the standard set by Adoption of Kelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 816.

D.N. sought parental rights after K.K. attempted to place their child for adoption. While the couple had made a conscious decision to have a child together, Bedsworth explained, they broke up the day before K.K. confirmed she was pregnant.

The biological father’s objection to the adoption produced a trial at which the prospective adoptive parents “pulled out all the stops in their effort to show that D.N. did not merit the status of a ‘Kelsey S. father,’” the justice wrote, presenting details regarding the biological parents’ relationship “the world does not need to know.”

But Bedsworth illuminated some of those details in holding that Orange Superior Court Judge James Waltz was correct in his assessment that D.N. did not provide the type of financial or emotional support that Kelsey S. demands

The justice wrote of D.N.:

“He did not pay any of the mother’s…substantial pregnancy expenses. He did not, as was within his power, save up for the future expenses of supporting a child. In fact, he raided the small fund the couple initially established for child expenses and never paid it back. He even falsified his check book register to make it look like he had sent money to her when he had not.”

He also sent an email to an attorney just as K.K. was meeting with him to discuss the case, the jurist noted, and showed up at her doctor’s office when she went there for an appointment he could not have known about without hacking her phone. Not only did not support the child or the mother financially, Bedsworth said, his “cyber-stalking during pregnancy” caused her great stress at a time he should have been providing comfort.

The case is Adoption of T.K., G050676.