Benito N. v. Sup. Ct.
Filed 1/31/07 Benito N. v. Sup. Ct. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
BENITO N., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent, KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. | F051598 (Super. Ct. No. JD110164) OPINION |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Jon E. Stuebbe, Judge.
Rory E. McKnight, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
B. C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel, and Jennifer L. Thurston, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450-8.452 [formerly rule 38-38.1]) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1] as to his daughter A. We will deny the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In March 2006, the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) removed then two-year-old A. from the custody of her parents, petitioner and Irma, and placed her with her maternal grandparents in Kern County. The department also filed a dependency petition, alleging petitioner and Irma placed A. at a substantial risk of harm because they abused drugs and failed to provide her adequate food, shelter and medical care. (§ 300, subd. (b).)
In April, the juvenile court ordered A. detained, adjudged her a dependent of the court and ordered petitioner and Irma to participate in child neglect, parenting and substance abuse counseling, to submit to random drug testing and to visit A. two hours weekly under the supervision of the department in the county in which A. was placed or resided. The court set the six-month review hearing for October 27, 2006.
In mid-May, petitioner contacted his caseworker and stated he had relocated to Texas for health reasons. The caseworker instructed petitioner to contact child protective services in his local area for assistance in getting enrolled in court-ordered services. In late May, the caseworker helped petitioner locate a department-approved drug testing program in his area and corresponded with him by letter from June through September 2006. In June 2006, a warrant was issued for petitioner's arrest in Kern County and in July, Irma joined petitioner in Texas.
In its six-month status review, the department recommended the court terminate reunification services for petitioner and Irma and proceed with a plan of adoption for A. with her maternal grandparents. The department reported that petitioner completed a parenting program and was participating in child neglect and substance abuse counseling. The department reported that petitioner drug tested once monthly from July through October and that he tested positive for cocaine in September and negative the other three months. In addition, he visited A. once weekly by telephone.
On October 27, the court conducted the six-month review hearing. Petitioner appeared through his attorney who did not present any evidence but argued for continued services based on what he claimed was petitioner's active participation and progress in his court-ordered services. Following argument, the court found petitioner and Irma were provided reasonable services but failed to regularly participate in and make substantive progress in their court-ordered services. The court also found there was not a substantial probability A. would be returned to their custody within another six months. Consequently, the court set a permanency planning hearing (§ 366.26) for February 22, 2007. This petition ensued.[2]
DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues the juvenile court erred in finding he was provided reasonable services, that he failed to make substantive progress in his court-ordered services and that there was not a substantial probability A. would be returned to his custody within another six months of services. We decline to review petitioner's challenge to the reasonableness of services, concluding he waived the issue by failing to raise it before the juvenile court. (Steve J. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 798, 810-811.) We find his remaining two issues meritless.
Generally, reunification services are limited to six months in cases such as this where the child was under the age of three years when removed from parental custody. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(2).) The purpose of the six-month limitation on services is to provide the juvenile court greater flexibility in meeting the needs of young children where the â€
