Adoption of J.D. CA2/6
Filed 5/12/23 Adoption of J.D. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
Adoption of J.D., a Minor. 2d Civil No. B323444 (Super. Ct. No. T000165) (Ventura County)
N.F.,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
C.D.,
Defendant and Respondent.
N.F. (Mother) appeals a judgment denying her petition to declare her daughter J.D. free from the custody and control of C.D. (Father). (Fam. Code, § 7822.1) The trial court found Father failed to communicate or visit J.D. for more than one year, but he rebutted the presumption of abandonment and Mother
1 All statutory references are to the Family Code.
failed to present clear and convincing evidence that Father intended to abandon his child. We affirm. FACTS Mother and Father are the unmarried parents of J.D., a teenage girl who was born in 2006. In 2008, they had “shared joint legal custody” of J.D., and Father had “supervised visitation” with J.D. Mother has had full legal and physical custody of J.D. since 2019. Z. moved in to live with Mother in 2010. In 2019, Father filed a request to modify his visitation rights with J.D. to allow him to have “unsupervised visits.” J.D. wanted the visits to “remain supervised.” The family court denied Father’s request. In 2020, Z. married Mother and became J.D.’s stepfather. On November 1, 2021, Mother filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights to J.D. She alleged Father’s last visit with J.D. was on August 19, 2019. She claimed Father “has not tried to contact the minor child for more than a year” and this constitutes an intent to abandon the child. On February 22, 2022, the Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA) filed a report with the trial court. The social worker interviewed Mother, the stepfather, and the child. J.D. told the social worker, “ ‘I want to be adopted, [Z., the stepfather] is my dad.’ ” HSA did not interview Father. It recommended that J.D. “be freed to be adopted by the . . . stepfather.” Mother testified Father did not “reach out” to her to ask how J.D. “was doing.” The last message she received from Father was in August 2019. Mother did not block Father from texting J.D. She set up “family counselling,” but Father did not attend the counselling sessions. From September 2019 “to now,” Father
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)