Unwed Father Loses Bid for Custody of Son : Courts: Judge rules that the boy should remain with the couple who have raised him since birth. The biological father is fighting the San Diego family’s petition for adoption.

In an unusual legal dispute over the guardianship of a child, a judge Monday ordered that a young boy should remain with the couple who have raised him since birth rather than be given to his biological father.

“We’re thrilled, especially for Michael,” said Peggy Stenbeck, 34, who said she knelt in prayer when she learned of the decision.

Juvenile Court Judge Michael D. Wellington ruled that 2 1/2-year-old Michael should remain with Peggy and John Stenbeck until the courts decide on their petition to adopt Michael, a process that could take months or years. The birth father, Mark King, will continue to have visitation privileges, Wellington said.

King, a 24-year-old assembly-line worker at a window frame factory in Prescott, Ariz., was crestfallen. “I did everything the court asked me to and this is what I get,” he said.

King had argued in court that he has conquered a drug and alcohol addiction and has found steady employment. But Wellington found that Michael could be emotionally harmed by being uprooted from a loving home that has been “comfortable and happy.”

“This unique human drama is representative of a larger nationwide debate over the evolving nature of the relationship between parents and children,” Wellington said.

The judge was asked to decide who would be Michael’s legal guardian while the adoption petition by the Stenbecks is pending at the state appeals court.

King is fighting the adoption petition--which has the backing of Michael’s birth mother--and may yet block the Stenbecks because the state law involving adoption has shifted to give greater emphasis to the rights of unwed fathers.

But even if King blocks the adoption, he would get custody of Michael only if he can overturn the guardianship ruling. To do so, he would have to prove that it is no longer in Michael’s best interest to stay with the Stenbecks.

Michael’s case is the first to go through the California court system under the change and may set precedent for other cases where unwed fathers seek to block the adoption of their children.

Wellington noted testimony that Michael, possibly as the result of tension between the Stenbecks and King, has regressed in his toilet training and has resumed drinking from a bottle.

The judge also cited testimony that after a visit by King, Michael woke up for several nights afterward crying and screaming, “Mommy bye-bye, daddy bye-bye, J.T. bye-bye.” J.T. is a 4-year-old boy adopted by the Stenbecks.

“There is every indication that (King) would be a fit parent,” Wellington said. “Yet, through no fault of Mr. King’s, circumstances have developed to the point that it would be clearly harmful to this child to move him.”

One turning point in the case may have been the testimony of a San Diego psychologist hired by King’s court-appointed attorney.

Noll Evans, who has extensive experience with children involved in custody battles, testified that Michael would suffer psychologically if abruptly uprooted and sent to Arizona with King.

Evans said he would recommend “no significant change of residence” until Michael is at least 5. The testimony caught King’s attorney by surprise but elated the Stenbecks.

Michael was born in a San Diego hospital to Stephanie Harman, then 15. King had a brief and stormy relationship with Harman that included King being arrested for allegedly assaulting her while she was pregnant.

After Harman broke off the relationship, she went to live with the Stenbecks, who had arranged to adopt the child.

After Harman left Arizona, King attempted suicide. While recuperating, he decided that he no longer wanted his child to be adopted.

While Michael’s case was pending, the California Supreme Court, in a case involving a child from Sherman Oaks, turned adoption law topsy-turvy in February, 1992, by ruling that unwed fathers should receive custody if they come forward immediately and offer full emotional and financial support.

Before the Kelsey S. case, adoption decisions were based on the best interests of the child, a standard that still holds in guardianship cases.

The Stenbecks’ attorneys hope to persuade the appeals court that King has not met the standards set in the Kelsey S. case. The Stenbecks have also joined a political movement to urge the Legislature to pass a law that restores the “best interest” standard in adoption cases.