If you have any doubts about Anthony’s story, take a look at some of the facts that I have uncovered in the case.
The guardianship requested by the failed adoptive parent essentially hinges on California Family Code §3041, which states;
“Before making an order granting custody to a person or persons other than a parent, over the objection of a parent, the court shall make a finding that granting custody to a parent would be detrimental to the child and that granting custody to the nonparent is required to serve the best interest of the child.”
I obtained and reviewed the transcripts on my own. At the first hearing, June 1, 2012, following the failed adoptive parent’s petition for guardianship, counsel for the failed adoptive parent (referring to the Appellate Court’s decision) states;
“…it was found that there would be detriment for the child to be placed with father…”
She then goes on to state;
“it’s quite clear in the appellate ruling that it was the Court found against him on that particular issue.”
I cross-checked her statements against the published opinion from the Appellate Court and found her statements to be FALSE. First of all, through reasonable deduction, there is no way the Appellate Court (or any other court for that matter) would have ordered visitation between father and minor restored if it was found that there would be detriment, as she claimed.
A cross-check of the published opinion from the Appellate Court confirmed my suspicions and in fact instructed the lower court to;
“…immediately order visitation between father and minor resumed while further proceedings regarding custody are ongoing…”
“We note that we see no evidence of detriment in the context of visitation in the record currently before us.”
According to California Family Code §3041(b);
“…finding that parental custody would be detrimental to the child shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence.”
To this day, there has been NO clear and convincing evidence of detriment presented.