Adoption of X.Z. CA3

Filed 4/10/13 Adoption of X.Z. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 X.Z., a minor.

D.T.,

Petitioner and Respondent, C072109

v. (Super. Ct. No. FL363663 )

D.Z.,

Objector and Appellant.

D.Z., father of the minor, appeals from a judgment declaring the minor free from the custody and control of his natural father. (Fam. Code, § 7860 et seq.) Father contends (1) the trial court erred in failing to appoint counsel for, and interview, the minor and (2) substantial evidence did not support the trial court’s finding he abandoned the minor within the meaning of Family Code section 7822. We conclude any error in failing to interview the minor or not appointing counsel for the minor was harmless. We reject father’s substantial evidence contention. There was ample evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that father abandoned the minor. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

1

FACTS In December 2009, stepfather filed an adoption request. The request alleged father had abandoned the 10-year-old minor because there had been no contact from father in more than a year. Probation Officer Harmon, while investigating the matter in January 2010, contacted father who was in jail. Father refused to consent to adoption and said he was due to be released soon. Harmon told father to contact the family court if he wanted visitation. Harmon’s stepparent adoption report stated mother lost contact with father when the minor was about three years old. Prior to that time the parents had an informal visitation agreement, which the mother ended when father threatened to take the minor to Mexico. Shortly thereafter, father and another person tried to break into mother’s home. At that time, mother got a restraining order against father and also filed for custody and child support orders. Father did not attend these hearings but did appear at a hearing on visitation initiated by the paternal grandmother. Visitation was denied and mother said father made no further effort to contact the minor. In April 2011, a petition to free the minor from father’s custody was filed. The petition alleged father left the minor without provision for support and had not contacted the minor from August 2001 to the present. In March 2011, father was sent letters regarding consent to adopt and again declined to consent. Father called Harmon and said he went to family court but the filing fees were too expensive. Harmon gave father information about the adoption petition process but had no further contact from him. Harmon’s report stated the minor was living with his mother and stepfather. When interviewed, the minor was fully aware of the adoption petition and expressed interest in being adopted soon. He wanted to change his last name because he did not like his current last name. He did not want to have to see father or go with him. When asked if there was anything the minor would like to tell the judge, the minor stated, “It’s