Reported / Citable
Background
In April 2024, Timothy S. petitioned under Family Code section 3104 for court-ordered visitation with his two grandchildren, seeking one weekend and two dinnertime visits each month plus weekly video calls. He alleged that the children's mother, Sarah H., refused visits despite his established relationship with the older child, whom he and his wife had cared for after the county removed her in 2019. Sarah, who was never married to Timothy's son T.S., opposed the petition and alleged Timothy had no substantial relationship with the children.
Earlier, a juvenile court ended dependency jurisdiction and entered final custody and visitation exit orders, in 2021 for the younger child and in 2022 for the older. The orders recited that T.S. had been declared presumed father, gave Sarah sole physical custody, provided shared legal custody with T.S., and gave T.S. supervised visitation. In the grandparent case, the trial court entered an interim order allowing one five-minute phone call a month and set a trial date on a long-term order.
Sarah asked Timothy to pay $17,193 in fees and costs, consisting of $7,193 already paid and an estimated $10,000 more. She relied on section 7605, subdivision (a), which authorizes need-based fee orders in proceedings under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA). The trial court denied the request, reasoning that it lacked statutory authority to award fees in a grandparent visitation petition. Timothy moved to dismiss the appeal based on a later stipulated visitation schedule, but the court denied that motion because the stipulation was silent on fees and on the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It reviewed the fee denial for abuse of discretion and the statutory questions de novo. It first held that section 7605 reaches only proceedings "under this part," meaning the UPA, sections 7600 through 7730. Timothy's petition arose under section 3104, which sits in a different part of the Family Code and gives grandparents a separate route, including when the parents are unmarried. Robert J. v. Catherine D. and N.S. v. D.M., which treat UPA petitions as the only method for unmarried parents to resolve custody, visitation, and support between themselves, did not involve grandparents and were distinguishable.
The court then rejected Sarah's alternative theory that the grandparent petition was a proceeding subsequent to a related UPA judgment. It gave four reasons the juvenile court's exit orders and parentage findings are not UPA judgments. First, dependency cases begin with a Welfare and Institutions Code petition, and the record did not show that anyone filed a parentage action. Second, juvenile courts have special, limited jurisdiction, and exit orders issue under Welfare and Institutions Code section 362.4, which does not incorporate the UPA. Third, presumed-father findings under section 316.2 borrow the UPA's standards but remain juvenile-law determinations. Fourth, those findings serve dependency's protective purpose of identifying parents for notice and reunification, rather than the UPA's focus on parental rights and support.
Because section 7605 did not apply, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying fees. The court found the statutory text clear and declined to address policy arguments that might point the other way.
Key Takeaways
- Section 7605's need-based fee provision applies only to proceedings under the UPA, so a grandparent's visitation petition under section 3104 does not support a fee award under it.
- Custody and visitation exit orders issued when a juvenile court ends dependency jurisdiction arise under juvenile law and are not UPA judgments, so later family court proceedings are not proceedings subsequent to a UPA judgment.
- A juvenile court's presumed-parent finding uses the UPA's section 7611 framework but remains a dependency-law determination rather than a UPA parentage judgment.
- The court held only that section 7605 does not authorize fees here, and it expressly declined to address policy arguments favoring a different result.
- The order was affirmed with each side bearing its own appellate costs, and the opinion does not resolve the merits of Timothy's visitation request.
Why It Matters
As a published decision, this opinion tells trial courts that fee-shifting under section 7605 follows the statutory vehicle actually invoked, not the fact that the parents were unmarried. Parents defending grandparent visitation petitions under section 3104 cannot rely on the UPA's need-based fee provision, including where the family's parentage history comes from a prior dependency case.
The decision also reinforces the separation between dependency and family court functions, and the rule that Family Code provisions do not carry into dependency proceedings unless expressly incorporated. The ruling concerns fees only. It does not decide whether any other source of fee authority exists, and the grandparent visitation dispute itself is not resolved.