Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re V.M., A Minor. v. T.D

January 13, 2011

IN RE V.M., A MINOR. C.B. ET AL., PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS,
v.
T.D., OBJECTOR AND APPELLANT.



Super. Ct. No. FL351109

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull,j.

In re V.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Objector and appellant T.D., alleged father of 10-year-old minor V.M., appeals from the trial court's order terminating his parental rights. (Prob. Code, § 1516.5; Fam. Code, § 7800 et seq.) Respondents, V.M.'s prospective adoptive parents, have not filed a brief.

Objector, who was incarcerated in Kansas when the hearing on termination of parental rights occurred, contends only that the trial court erred by failing sua sponte to provide for him to testify by telephone. We shall affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This is the second appeal in this proceeding. In his first appeal, objector in propria persona attacked an order appointing respondents V.M.'s permanent guardians. (Guardianship of V.M. (May 24, 2010, C059553) [nonpub. opn.].) We take judicial notice of our prior opinion and generally draw the facts from that opinion up to the time of that order.

We note that in the prior opinion we called objector the minor's biological father because he called himself that, respondents filed no brief, and nothing in the record controverted his claim. However, the record as of now shows that he has not established biological paternity, although he has offered to do so. Therefore we call him only the alleged father this time.

Respondents became V.M.'s legal guardians in Arkansas in August 2004 when V.M. was four years old. The Arkansas probate court found that V.M. lived with respondents and her mother consented to the adoption. (Guardianship of V.M., supra, C059553.)

In June 2007, after relocating to California, respondents filed a petition in San Joaquin County Superior Court to declare V.M. free from parental custody and control. The petition declared that her mother was aware of her whereabouts but had minimal contact with her, had made no provisions for her support, and that her father was unknown. (Guardianship of V.M., supra, C059553.)

In August 2007, the superior court directed respondents to file a petition for guardianship. After they did so, the court appointed them V.M.'s temporary guardians and ordered the guardianship petition consolidated with their petition to adopt. (Guardianship of V.M., supra, C059553.)

On August 22, 2007, having learned that objector claimed to be V.M.'s father, respondents issued notice to him at his last known address, in Kansas, to appear and show cause why V.M. should not be declared free from his parental custody and control. However, he could not be found at that address and no other was known. (Guardianship of V.M., supra, C059553.)

On December 10, 2007, the trial court terminated the parental rights of V.M.'s mother, and thereafter entered judgment freeing V.M. from her mother's custody and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.