In re A.M.
This court has previously addressed a similar dispute between the parties. (Adoption of A.M. (June 29, 2009, E043937) [nonpub. opn.].) The prior opinion addressed the trial court granting the biological father’s motion for judgment on the mother’s and stepfather’s petition to terminate the biological father’s parental rights to his child, A.M. This court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, concluding substantial evidence reflected the biological father never intended to abandon A.M.
In August 2010, A.M.’s mother, petitioner and respondent L.M. (Mother), again petitioned the trial court to terminate the parental rights of A.M.’s biological father, objector and appellant M.M. (Father). (Fam. Code, § 7822.)[1] The trial court concluded Father abandoned A.M. and terminated Father’s parental rights. Father appeals the termination of his parental rights. First, Father asserts the trial court erred by relitigating the termination issue due to the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Second, Father asserts the record does not support a finding that he intended to abandon his son, A.M. Third, Father contends the trial court abused its discretion by not following the recommendation made in the social study report. We reverse the judgment.
Comments on In re A.M.