S. Elise D. v. Steven D.

Bad Law
1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 263·209 Cal. App. 3d 122·256 Cal. Rptr. 884
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 29, 1989Docket Nos. H003927, H005140California5,374 words

Opinion

Opinion

Brauer, J.

The trial court found that Steven D. (Steven) had abandoned his son Michael for a period of one year within the meaning of Civil Code section 232, subdivision (a)(1) and ordered that his parental rights be terminated and that Michael be freed for adoption by his stepparent. In this appeal Steven raises the following claims: 1) The one-year period measuring abandonment should not have commenced until his paternity was finally adjudicated, since he was not until that time a “parent” as that word is used in section 232;

2) The court erred in failing to make an express finding that a continued relationship with him would be detrimental to the child;

3) The court erred in failing to find that there were no less detrimental alternatives to termination of parental rights;

4) Counsel should have been appointed to represent the child’s interests; and

5) His attorney failed to develop a meritorious defense, thus depriving him of effective assistance of counsel.

Steven has also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. We ordered that the writ petition be considered with the appeal. On the record on appeal, we will affirm the order…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.