Adoption of Pierce

California Court of Appeal Mar 12, 1970 No. Civ. 35629Published

Before: Alarcon

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court granted a writ of supersedeas to stay the suspension of visitation rights, ordering the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if continued visitation is in the child's best interests pending the outcome of the adoption appeal.

Issues

Whether a non-final decree of adoption automatically terminates existing visitation rights of a natural father.
Whether the appellate court has the inherent power to stay the suspension of visitation rights to protect the father-child relationship pending appeal.

Disposition. granted

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that the mere existence of a decree of adoption not yet final, and of questionable validity, should not, in and of itself, serve to terminate visitation rights theretofore in existence.”

“This court has an inherent power to issue process necessary to protect its appellate jurisdiction and to insure that the rights of an appellant will not be destroyed by the mere passage of time necessary to prosecute his appeal.”

[318]

Opinion

ALARCON, J. pro tem.

The appellant and petitioner Jerry Pierce seeks a writ of supersedeas to stay the enforcement of a portion of the judgment of the Superior Court for Los Angeles granting the petition for adoption filed by Raymond Kaplan in the case entitled, In the Matter of the Adoption Petition of Raymond S. Kaplan, superior court number AD 70279. The portion involved deals with the cancellation of visitation rights previously existing.

On November 29, 1967, the petitioner filed an inverse paternity action in the superior court (Jerry Pierce v. Sally Kay Petteys, superior court number NC D 7259-B) in which he asked the court to find that he was the father of Shana Rachel Pierce, who was born out of wedlock from his intimate relationship with the child’s mother, and that he be granted visitation rights. An answer was filed on December 11, 1967, in which the defendant, now Salongé K. Kaplan, admitted that she was the mother of Shana Rachel Pierce and that petitioner was the natural father. On the same date the child’s mother filed a cross-complaint in which she requested that the court declare that the petitioner was the natural father of Shana, and that petitioner be ordered to pay child support.

On January 16, 1968, the court order was issued pursuant to stipulation requiring the petitioner to pay child support of $25 per week, and permitting him limited visitation rights as set forth in the stipulation.

On July 25, 1968, the matter went to trial and was submitted to the court. On August 18, 1968, the court declared that petitioner is the father of Shana, granted him restricted visitation rights, and ordered him to pay child support of $25 a week. Judgment was entered on October 1, 1968.

On April 13, 1968, the child’s mother was married to Raymond S. Kaplan. On July 30, 1968, while the paternity action was still pending, Raymond S. Kaplan filed a step-parent adoption petition with the Superior Court for Los Angeles County. Jerry Pierce, the petitioner in the matter before this court, refused to sign a consent to the adoption as the natural father. Mr. Pierce appeared at the adoption hearing and testified in opposition to the granting of the petition because of the absence of his consent.

Adoption of Pierce

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief