In re Lauren B

Filed 2/16/06 In re Lauren B. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

John L. Henning, Judge. Affirmed.

Christopher Blake, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioners.

Douglas R. Donnelly for Objector.

_______________

Ruben A. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his biological daughter, Lauren. ~(This is an adoption under the Family Code, not a dependency)~

The facts are simple: Lauren was born in May 2003. Her mother, Jennifer B., who was fourteen or fifteen years old, entered into an independent adoption agreement with prospective adoptive parents. They took Lauren into their home a few days after her birth, and filed an adoption petition and a petition to determine appellant's parental rights. (Fam. Code § 7664.) Appellant was served with the petitions and counsel was appointed to represent him. Trial on the termination of parental rights was held in September, 2004. By that time, appellant had been convicted of rape and statutory rape. Jennifer B. was the victim of those crimes. His appeal was pending.

Appellant was present at trial, but did not testify, after being advised by his counsel that while counsel would prefer that he testify, criminal appellate counsel would no doubt advise him not to. The trial court found that appellant did not testify "because of other considerations with respect to a criminal case he was involved in."

The trial court took evidence from the prospective adoptive parents. Through counsel, appellant objected to termination of his parental rights and contended that petitioners had not carried their burden. The court terminated appellant's rights, finding that there was no evidence that he was a presumed father, and also finding that adoption was in Lauren's best interest.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant. Counsel informed us that he was unable to file an opening brief on the merits, and also informed us that he had forwarded a copy of the record on appeal to appellant, redacted to protect the privacy of the adoptive parents pursuant to this court's order of December 5, 2005. We advised appellant that he could file a supplemental brief on his own behalf.

Appellant filed a letter brief contending that his trial counsel wrongly discouraged him from taking the matter to trial and from testifying at trial, indicating that trial counsel did not want to fight for him, and also contending that he and his family were deprived of the opportunity to care for Lauren because he did not know of Jennifer B.'s pregnancy.

We have thoroughly examined the entire record, and find no ground for reversal. The trial court had no evidence which would have established that appellant was a presumed father, and abundant evidence that adoption was in Lauren's best interest. (Fam. Code § 7664, subd. (b).) We do not see that the representation afforded to appellant in the trial court failed in any material respect. To the contrary, the record indicates that counsel fulfilled his duties.

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

ARMSTRONG, J.

We concur:

TURNER, P. J.

MOSK, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego Bankruptcy Lawyer (http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/) And San Diego Lawyers Directory ( http://www.fearnotlaw.com/ )