January 1, 2010:
Baby Hailey/ “Kelsey S” is born. Biological mother relinquishes her parental rights and turns Hailey over to the prospective adoptive parents at the hospital.
January 8, 2010:
The prospective adoptive parents file a request to adopt minor in Placer County Superior Court. They also file a petition to terminate father‘s parental rights, contending that since he learned of her pregnancy, father failed to assist mother either financially or emotionally. The Sacramento County case involving paternity was transferred to Placer County. According to the Court, the prospective adoptive parents, knew the attempted adoption was against father’s wishes, that he would not consent to adoption, that he wanted to raise his own child, and that they were taking custody his child behind his back. Nevertheless, they took the child into their custody have held her in their possession ever since. Father had court-ordered supervised visitation during the trial for 4 hours per week.
April 10, 2010:
An outstanding Ms. Rost psychological report is to be submitted to the court via a court order before a termination decision is rendered. However, this report remains concealed to this day.
In a two day trial, the courts hear various arguments regarding the termination of paternal rights. The prospective adoptive parents argue that the father had forfeited his parental rights by avoiding any support of the mother or pregnancy by making the mother afraid of him. Father argued he was a “Kelsey S.” father because he had come forward to establish paternity, tried to get married, and paid expenses commensurate with his ability to do so. Father argued that the standard for termination of parental rights was not in the best interest of the child but detriment to the child or unfitness. Meaning, if the courts see that he had tried to support the pregnancy, then the court could not rule “on the best interests of the child” but rather have to prove him unfit or a danger to Hailey.
October 20, 2010:
Court rules that father participated as far as mother would allow during her pregnancy and attempted to marry her, concluding that he was a “Kelsey S.” father. However, the court concluded father would not meet minor‘s needs and could not ―provide the stability and protection that the prospective adoptive parents could. Because placing minor with father posed a substantial risk of harm to her and ―her best interests are served by not placing into [sic] an unfit home”
Note: October 5, 2010: The prospective adoptive father quetly files for dissolution of marriage from the prospective adoptive mother. He later withdraw his request for adoption and consents to the female prspective adoptive mother proceeding with the adoption as a single parent.
November 10, 2010:
The court holds a hearing on whether to reopen the termination case based on the dissolution of the prospective adoptive parents’ marriage. Finding that ―stability for minor was a significant factor in its earlier decision, the court stays its statement of decision for reconsideration and continues visitation. In other words, they put it all on hold.