FAMILY REUNITED BY APPELLATE COURT RULING.

Byline: TROY ANDERSON Staff Writer

The ``Megan P.'' case outlined in California Court of Appeal documents is another example of a father who paid child support for years believing his daughter was living with her mother -- when she was actually in foster care.

The case began in 1996 after the mother was arrested and her four children were put in foster care in Los Angeles County. A social worker told the judge the father's whereabouts were unknown.

Records show the father had moved to Indiana after breaking up with the mother and had been trying to contact her. The county's Child Support Services Department located him, and he agreed to begin paying child support.

While the mother's aunt reported the father was in Indiana, records show the Department of Children and Family Services only searched for him at a previous address in California and searched under a misspelled last name.

DCFS did not contact the child-support department until 2001 to inquire about the father's location, records show.

DCFS wrote the father a letter, who then called and said he had tried to find his children and believed they were living with their mother.

But the oldest daughter had been placed in a group home and the other three were living with prospective adoptive parents. The father's parental rights with his two youngest daughters had been terminated, and a hearing was set in January 2002 to terminate his rights to his third daughter.

At the hearing, the father's lawyer asked for a continuance, explaining that he had not had the opportunity to consult with his client. But the request was denied, and the father's rights were terminated.

The Court of Appeal, however, reversed the orders terminating the father's parental rights, and the family was reunified.

The justices wrote that DCFS has a constitutional obligation to exercise ``due diligence'' to notify parents before terminating their parental rights.

``The court concluded that the department had not exercised reasonable diligence by continuing to look for the father in California even though it had evidence of the correct spelling of his last name and his location in Indiana,'' according to a court synopsis of the case.

``Moreover, the court questioned why DCFS did not ask the Child Support Services Department whether it knew of the father's whereabouts.

``The appellate court also indicated that dependent families are entitled to assurance that DCFS will take steps to contact and continue to contact the Child Support Services Department whenever a parent is missing.''

troy.anderson(at)dailynews.com

[phone]