C.A. 4th;
D071661

The Fourth Appellate District affirmed in part and reversed in part a dependency court order. The court held that a father's consistent involvement in his child's life was not required in order for him to qualify as a putative parent; however, he could not qualify as a third parent absent a showing of detriment to the child in the absence of such a designation.

D.Z.'s 10-year old daughter L.L. became the subject of dependency proceedings. The court found that T.L., who had lived with D.Z. and L.L. since L.L. was a year old, was L.L.'s putative father. Both he and D.Z. were provided reunification services, and L.L. expressed a strong interest in maibntianing a relationship with T.L., who, according to her, was the one person with whom she felt cared for and safe. The dependency court recognized B.S., who was then incarcerated, as L.L.'s biological father. The record showed further that B.S. had obtained a joint custody order when L.L. was a year old, but that D.Z. had nonetheless denied him contact with the child, and L.L. did not know him. B.S. had nonetheless listed L.L. as his child on his insurance forms, and had provided money, groceries, clothing, books, children's items, and other supplies to D.Z. and L.L.