Adoption of J.D. CA3
Filed 6/7/21 Adoption of J.D. CA3 Opinion following rehearing NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----
In re Adoption of J.D., a Minor. C092964
K.D., (Super. Ct. No. SAD0003780)
Petitioner and Respondent, OPINION ON REHEARING
v.
J.F.,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appellant J.F., biological father of the minor, appeals from the family law court’s order terminating his parental rights. He contends the order must be reversed because the court and parties failed to address whether termination of his parental rights was in the minor’s best interests. We agree and remand with instructions to the family law court to make additional findings and enter a new order on the petition to terminate parental rights.
1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We limit our recitation of the background to those facts necessary to our resolution of this appeal. On May 14, 2019, respondent K.D., mother of the then two-year-old minor, filed an ex parte petition to dispense with notice to, and terminate the parental rights of, appellant—the biological father of the minor. The petition alleged, inter alia, that appellant is not the minor’s presumed father, nor is there another person who is the minor’s presumed father, and that the minor should be freed for adoptive placement by mother and a prospective adoptive second parent. Mother’s supporting declaration stated she was seeking to allow her mother (the maternal grandmother) to become the minor’s adoptive second parent. To facilitate this second parent adoption, she was requesting the court terminate appellant’s parental rights pursuant to Family Code sections 7822 and 7664.1 On the same date, the maternal grandmother filed an adoption request, seeking to be declared an additional parent, with mother retaining her parental rights, but also requesting the court grant the petition to terminate appellant’s parental rights. A court investigator filed a report on June 17, 2019, reporting appellant had no relationship with mother at the time of conception, had never met the minor, and was not certain the minor was his biological child. The investigator reported appellant claimed he had been kept from seeing the minor or providing financial support, was opposed to termination of parental rights, and was hoping for court ordered visitation. The investigator reported, however, that appellant had not made any attempt to petition for visitation and had not shown any initiative, beyond token efforts, to meet or financially support the minor. Mother had reported that when she told appellant of her pregnancy, he asked her to get an abortion. The investigator also reported that the minor’s mother
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)