Adoption of T.W. CA3

Filed 11/24/21 Adoption of T.W. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

Adoption of T.W., a Minor. C094016

T.W. et al., (Super. Ct. No. STAFLADOP20190006452) Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

N.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

N.M., biological father (father) of the infant minor T.G.W. (minor), appeals from an order terminating his parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption by prospective adoptive parents T.W. (adoptive father) and M.W. (adoptive mother). N.M. contends the trial court erred by finding he did not establish the prerequisites to withhold consent to the adoption under Adoption of Kelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 816 (Kelsey S.). We affirm the juvenile court’s order.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS N.M. and M.H. (mother), the unwed biological parents of the minor, separated during early in mother’s pregnancy in December 2019, about eight months before the

1

minor was born. Mother went to a domestic violence shelter when she fought with N.M. in December 2019, returned, then went back to the shelter. N.M. never saw mother personally after she left; he attempted to reach her on Facebook Messenger a number of times and had two conversations with her but was otherwise unsuccessful. According to N.M., in March 2019, he asked mother if she needed anything or any help, and she responded that she was “gonna have an abortion,” asked him to leave her alone and not contact her, and that she did not need help. This was the last time N.M. contacted mother. Mother proceeded with adoption planning and completed initial adoption paperwork identifying N.M. as the biological father and said that he “was not involved at that point” and she “had left because of a domestic violence situation, and that he had requested that she have an abortion.” Jennifer Shimabukuro, the adoption facilitator, attempted to contact N.M. at the phone number provided by mother and left a voice message for him; he did not respond. Mother later declared that N.M. did not provide money for her child support expenses or any help with the pregnancy expenses. Mother also declared that she discussed adoption with father, but she did not know whether he would agree. According to Shimabukuro, mother indicated that N.M. requested that she terminate the pregnancy. On the date of the minor’s birth (in August 2019), M.H. gave the minor up to the adoptive parents, whom M.H. had met through an adoption agency. The adoptive parents filed their adoption request. On December 13, 2019, the State Department of Social Services (DSS) sent a letter to N.M. “informing him of the adoption plan and possible steps he could take to agree or object to the plan.” DSS investigator Kim Arikawa testified that she did not remember the mailing address off the top of her head, but believed “it’s something like 1646 46th Avenue, or something like that, in Oakland.” DSS stated that the letter was not returned by the post office as undeliverable and also that N.M. did not respond to the letter. N.M. testified that he did not receive the letter from DSS because he had moved by that point and did not provide a change of address form to the post office.