## Facts

- Allison C. was born in March 2001 to her mother and John C. (biological father).
- Mother left father after a domestic-violence incident in which father struck mother while she held the infant; mother ceased contact and lived elsewhere with Allison.
- Father was incarcerated for domestic violence from October 2001 to February 2003.
- After release, father visited Allison secretly at his brother’s house until mother discovered and stopped the visits in September 2003.
- Father was incarcerated for second-degree burglary from September 2003 to July 2005.
- Dario A. (stepfather) became involved in Allison’s life in early 2003, married mother in February 2005, and sought to adopt Allison in April 2005; an adoption report found him stable and adoption in Allison’s best interests.
- A July 2005 DNA test confirmed father’s paternity; father was released from prison the same month.
- A restraining order protected mother and Allison from father but allowed supervised visitation; after mother requested drug testing before visits, the parole officer barred visits, and father did not seek permission or other relief to restore contact.
- Father was incarcerated again from May to September 2006 (parole violation) and from October 2006 to April 2007 (DUI).
- In October 2006, stepfather petitioned under California Family Code § 7822 to free Allison from father’s custody and control based on abandonment; the trial court granted the petition, terminated father’s parental rights, and found adoption by stepfather in Allison’s best interests.
- Father appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court’s application of § 7822.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported a finding under Family Code § 7822 that father “left” Allison with the intent to abandon, where separation stemmed partly from incarceration and protective/legal restrictions.
2. Whether incarceration, restraining-order conditions, and parole-officer limits on visitation negated the statutory inference of intent to abandon arising from nonsupport and noncommunication.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment terminating father’s parental rights and freeing Allison for adoption.
- Substantial evidence supported findings that father “left” Allison within the meaning of § 7822 and intended to abandon her.
- Father’s extended periods of no meaningful communication and no more than token support triggered the statutory presumption of intent to abandon, which father did not rebut.
- Incarceration and third-party restrictions did not bar an abandonment finding where father had avenues to maintain or pursue contact and failed to do so.
- The trial court did not err in determining that adoption by the stepfather was in Allison’s best interests.

## Legal Principles

- Under Family Code § 7822, a parent may be found to have “left” a child when the parent’s conduct results in the child remaining in another’s custody for the statutory period without support or communication, even if the initial separation followed the other parent’s departure or court involvement.
- Failure to provide support, failure to communicate, or both, for the statutory period constitutes presumptive evidence of intent to abandon; the parent bears the burden of rebutting that inference with evidence of reasonable efforts and contrary intent.
- Incarceration is not a categorical defense to abandonment; criminal conduct and resulting confinement may support an inference of abandonment, particularly where the parent fails to use available means to communicate, support, or seek permitted visitation.
- Protective orders and supervision requirements do not negate abandonment when contact is not wholly barred and the parent does not pursue available administrative or judicial steps to maintain a relationship.
- After abandonment is established, termination and freeing the child for adoption must also serve the child’s best interests, including stability and the existing parental bond with the prospective adoptive parent.

## Conclusion

The court upheld termination of the biological father’s rights under Family Code § 7822 because his prolonged lack of meaningful contact and more than token support, coupled with repeated incarcerations and failure to pursue available avenues for contact despite restrictions, supported an inference of intent to abandon, and adoption by the stepfather served the child’s best interests.


Adoption of Allison C., 164 Cal. App. 4th 1004, 79 Cal. Rptr. 3d 743 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)