Background
Georgina V. filed a January 2025 petition in Riverside County Superior Court seeking to free her ten-year-old child, D.L., from the custody and control of the father, Paul L., under Family Code section 7800 et seq. She alleged Paul abandoned D.L. between February 2017 and 2024, invoking section 7822(a)(3), which permits termination where a parent leaves a child in the other parent's care for one year without support or communication and with intent to abandon. The family court, Judge Mona Nemat presiding, denied the petition, finding Georgina failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Paul intended to abandon D.L.
The parties' accounts diverged. Georgina testified Paul left after an argument at D.L.'s first birthday party in February 2017 and had no further contact with her. Paul testified that between 2018 and 2023 he visited Georgina's home more than 20 times, left about 20 letters, and called repeatedly leaving voicemails, though no one answered. He admitted that from 2017 to 2024 he took no legal action, provided no financial support, and had no knowledge of D.L.'s well-being, but denied intending to abandon the child; he was homeless from late 2017 to early 2018 and filed a paternity petition in May 2024. The court found both parties credible and concluded there was no one-year period in which Paul failed to attempt contact or had the intent to abandon D.L.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal, in an opinion by Justice Castillo joined by Acting Presiding Justice Do and Justice Rubin, affirmed. It first rejected Paul's procedural challenges: a denied section 7822 petition is a final, appealable judgment, and the denial of a new trial motion, though not directly appealable, is reviewable on appeal from that judgment. The court also held the family court properly denied Georgina's request for a statement of decision as untimely under Code of Civil Procedure section 632—because the trial spanned two afternoons totaling less than eight hours, the request had to be made before submission, and Georgina conceded she filed it immediately after trial.
On abandonment, the court applied substantial evidence review, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and deferring to credibility determinations. It found ample evidence Paul did not intend to abandon D.L.: his repeated visits, letters, and calls over six years began long before any legal action, and his paternity petition preceded Georgina's termination petition by roughly eight months. Citing In re T.M.R. and In re Jacklyn F., the court explained letters that never reach the child do not constitute parental nonaction. As for the undisputed lack of financial support, Georgina never requested child support and Paul was homeless and unable to pay; under In re Baby Boy M., failure to support without ability and without demand does not by itself prove intent to abandon.
The court upheld denial of the postjudgment motions. The section 663 motion improperly asked the trial court to change factual findings on abandonment and intent, which that statute does not permit. The section 657(6) new trial motion rested on a claimed error in law, not a recognized ground, and consisted of a single conclusory sentence without authority, rendering it forfeited. The court affirmed the judgment and awarded Paul his costs on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A denied Family Code section 7822 petition is a final, appealable judgment, and denial of a new trial motion is reviewable on appeal from that judgment.
- When a trial concludes in less than eight hours over more than one day, a section 632 statement-of-decision request must be made before submission; one filed immediately after trial is untimely.
- Persistent but unsuccessful contact efforts, including letters that never reach the child, are not necessarily token efforts and can defeat intent-to-abandon findings when they predate legal proceedings.
- Failure to provide financial support does not by itself establish intent to abandon where the parent lacked ability to pay and no support was demanded.
- A section 663 motion cannot alter factual findings, and error in law is not a ground for a new trial under section 657(6).
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the deference appellate courts give family court findings on parental intent in abandonment cases, even where the record includes years without financial support, no legal action, and no knowledge of the child's welfare. A noncustodial parent's documented, sustained contact attempts, however fruitless, can supply substantial evidence defeating the clear and convincing showing required for termination.
The ruling also reinforces procedural pitfalls in family law litigation: strict timing for statement-of-decision requests in short trials, the limits of postjudgment relief under sections 657 and 663, and forfeiture of conclusory appellate arguments, while showing courts may still reach the merits despite briefing deficiencies.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket