In re H.D.

24 Citing cases

  1. M. B. v. K. T. (In re K. T.)

    No. C095847 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 30, 2022)

    It was his drug addiction that isolated him from K. T. and prevented him from providing support. Appellant relies on the decision in In re H.D. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 42, to support his argument. We are not persuaded.

  2. J.C. v. D.D. (In re D.F.D.)

    No. F082868 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2021)

    Rather, "[A] parent voluntarily abandons their parental role if they choose to commit criminal acts that result in incarceration." (In re H.D. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 42, 51 (H.D.); see Allison C., at p. 1012.)

  3. Taylor T. v. Anthony N. (In re Aubrey T.)

    48 Cal.App.5th 316 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 15 times
    In Aubrey T., the appellate court reversed the lower court's termination of the father's parental rights over the child.

    ( In re E.M. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 828, 838-839, 175 Cal.Rptr.3d 711 ; see also In re H.D. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 42, 50, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 802.) A trial court’s finding of abandonment must "be supported by clear and convincing evidence."

  4. A. D.R. v. Z. M.G. (In re Am. D.R.)

    No. A168489 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 4, 2024)

    There appears no reason why the trial court could not properly take into account all these circumstances in determining that mother's failure to pay support for a period of time did not reflect an intent to abandon. (In re H.D. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 42, 53 (H.D.) ["It is also undisputed mother was unemployed during the months she failed to pay child support and was therefore unable to comply with the support order. A parent's failure to support a child when they do not have the ability to do so does not, by itself, prove intent to abandon."]

  5. N.L. v. T.B.

    No. A167448 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2023)

    As Father acknowledges, "the domestic violence restraining order and the periods of incarceration were due to his actions." (See In re H.D. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 42, 51 ["a parent voluntarily abandons their parental role if they choose to commit criminal acts that result in incarceration"].) We note that Father's incarceration from June 8, 2019 to September 16, 2019 would not have precluded him from attending the family court hearings on June 4, 2019 and in December 2019.

  6. L.B. v. T.P.

    No. C093931 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2022)

    As applicable here, abandonment occurs when "[o]ne parent has left the child in the care and custody of the other parent for a period of one year without any provision for the child's support, or without communication from the parent, with the intent on the part of the parent to abandon the child." (§ 7822, subd. (a)(3); In re H.D. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 42, 50.)

  7. J.C. v. M.B. (In re N.B.)

    No. E076875 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 16, 2021)

    As this court has previously explained, “[l]eaving a child in the care of another does not require a literal physical desertion; instead, ‘[c]ase law consistently focuses on the voluntary nature of a parent's abandonment of the parental role....' [Citation.]... [A] parent voluntarily abandons their parental role if they choose to commit criminal acts that result in incarceration.” (In re H.D. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 42, 51; see Allison C., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 1012.) Thus, the stipulated facts alone constitute substantial evidence upon which the trial court could rely to conclude Father voluntarily left N.B.

  8. L.P. v. P.E. (In re G.B.)

    No. E076895 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2021)

    “The Family Code authorizes a court to terminate parental rights if the parent has abandoned their child.” (In re H.D. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 42, 50 (H.D.).) The purpose of the statutory scheme allowing for the termination of parental rights under such circumstances is “to serve the welfare and best interest of a child by providing the stability and security of an adoptive home when those conditions are otherwise missing from the child's life.”

  9. Amanda B. v. Kyle R. (In re B.R.)

    F080952 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2020)

    The trial court requested briefs on the issues of intent to abandon and whether there was a "leaving" by father as opposed to a judicial "taking." The court requested the parties to address In re Jacklyn F. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 747 (Jacklyn F.) and In re Amy A. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 63 (Amy A.), which dealt with the issue of when court orders can constitute a "leaving," and In re H.D. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 42 (H.D.), which dealt with the issue of where a parent does not have contact with the children due to drug addiction. Counsel for the children and mother argued in their briefs that mother's petition should be granted.

  10. M.M. v. Eric B. (In re Madison B.)

    F078317 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 23, 2019)

    However, '[t]he fact that a parent has not communicated with a child ... or that the parent intended to abandon the child does not become material ... unless the parent has "left" the child' within the meaning of section 7822." (In re H.D. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 42, 50 (H.D.).) "A finding of abandonment 'shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence' (§ 7821), and we apply a substantial evidence standard of review to the trial court's findings."