In re M.N. CA5

Filed 5/1/25 In re M.N. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re M.N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

J.B., F088557

Petitioner and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23AD-00072)

v. OPINION C.N.,

Objector and Appellant.

THE COURT*† APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County. Mark V. Bacciarini, Judge. Valerie N. Lankford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant. No appearance for Petitioner and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and Fain, J.† † Judge of the Fresno Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

The Merced County court granted a petition by J.B. (stepfather) under Family Code section 7820 et seq.1 to terminate the parental rights of C.N. (father), thereby freeing M.N. (minor) for adoption by stepfather, who is currently married to M.B. (mother). Father appealed. After reviewing the court record, father’s court-appointed counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on father’s behalf. This court granted father leave to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844.) Father filed numerous letters alleging error on the part of the court in its findings, as well as misconduct on the part of his counsel. We conclude father failed to set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the hearing. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On December 14, 2023, stepfather petitioned the court to free minor from the custody and control of father under section 7820 et seq. in order to proceed with his adoption request. Stepfather’s petition was based on section 7822 (abandonment) and section 7825 (felony conviction), although the request for termination of parental rights under section 7825 was later withdrawn. Father filed a declaration with the court opposing the petition. Father stated that he and mother were divorced in 2016, at which time he was granted regular visitation and phone calls with minor. Father alleged that he provided minor with clothing, birthday gifts, and visited minor twice a month, as granted by the court. Father also alleged that he attempted to pay mother child support, but she declined and “canceled the order.” According to father, in 2018, he and mother agreed on a custody schedule allowing him to have minor every other weekend, Christmas/winter break, and various other holidays Father alleged that, at the end of 2018, mother stopped allowing him to see minor because stepfather “gave her [such] a hard time.” At this point, father retained