Adoption of I.A. CA4/3

Filed 4/29/14 Adoption of I.A. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Adoption of I.A., a Minor.

F.P. et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents, G048933

v. (Super. Ct. No. AD78979)

I.A. III, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Ronald P. Kreber, Judge. Affirmed. Diana W. Prince, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Jarvis, Krieger & Sullivan, Carolyn Martin and Siobhan M. Bishop for Plaintiffs and Respondents. * * *

Appellant, the biological father, challenges the judgment terminating his parental rights to free I.A. for adoption by his stepfather, F.P. The superior court terminated parental rights. Finding no error, we affirm. I FACTS The Petitions N.P. (the mother) of I.A., who was born in 2007, and her spouse brought a petition to declare minor free from parental custody and control. The petition was filed on September 4, 2012, and states the mother had full custody and control of I.A. since April 2008. Probate court services prepared an adoption report which was filed on November 1, 2012. The report states the biological father (appellant) “does not consent to his son being adopted by the [stepfather].” The evaluator states in the report: “In conclusion, . . . this investigator is of the opinion it would not be in the minor’s best interest to approve a stepparent adoption at this time. As presented above, this five and half year old boy did not appear of sufficient age and capacity to reason to understand and express an intelligent preference regarding this adoption, and currently seems confused by the parental conflict associated with the past Family Law and the current Probate cases. Furthermore, it does not appear the father’s recent lapse of contact constitutes parental abandonment. The father denied any intention to abandon his son, and expressed his plans to re-establish visitation with him. The father also expressed a willingness to continue to financially support his son in the future, once he re-establishes employment.” A petition to determine parental rights was filed on July 18, 2012. That petition states in part: “The court had previously ordered no visitation to [appellant] as of 10/26/11. [Appellant] has a long history of domestic violence and drug abuse. I do not