In In re Baby Boy V. (2006)140 Cal.App.4th 1108, the mother abandoned the child at the hospital hours after giving birth. A dependency petition was filed on the child's behalf, and DCFS reported that the identity of the child's father was unknown. At a subsequent hearing, the court asked the mother to identify potential fathers; she refused. The court denied mother and the unidentified father reunification services and set a permanency plan hearing for nine months after the child's birth. (140 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1110-1111.) About six weeks before that hearing, Jesus H. appeared at DCFS's office and said he was probably the child's father. He said he had just learned of the child's birth, wanted reunification services, and would comply with the court's orders. The social worker told him about the termination hearing, but she did not inform the court that Jesus had come forward or permit him to visit the child. (Baby Boy V., supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1111-1112.) Jesus then appeared at the termination hearing and requested a paternity test and reunification services. He told the court he had held the same job for eight years and had another child whom he supported. (Id. at pp. 1113-1114.) The court appointed counsel to represent Jesus, but denied his request for a paternity test. It then terminated mother's and Jesus's parental rights. (Id. at pp. 1112-1115.) Jesus appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed. It noted that under the Supreme Court's decision in Adoption of Kelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 816, when a father learns of a pregnancy and "'promptly comes forward and demonstrates a full commitment to his parental responsibilities--emotional, financial, and otherwise--his federal constitutional right to due process prohibits the termination of his parental relationship absent a showing of his unfitness as a parent. Absent such a showing, the child's well-being is presumptively best served by continuation of the father's parental relationship. Similarly, when the father has come forward to grasp his parental responsibilities, his parental rights are entitled to equal protection as those of the mother.'" (In re Baby Boy V., supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 1117.) In the case before it, because Jesus came forward "at the earliest possible moment and when the baby had been in foster care for only eight months," and nothing in the record suggested he was an unfit parent, he was entitled to presumed father status, reunification services, and visitation. (Id. at pp. 1117-1118.)