In re Abraham C.
Filed 6/14/06 In re Abraham C. CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re ABRAHAM C., A Person Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law.
MONTEREY COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES, H029627
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Monterey County
Super. Ct. No. J38259)
v.
ERNEST O., Jr.,
Defendant and Appellant.
________________________________________/
Ernest O. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his son Abraham pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. [1] Appellant contends that the juvenile court erred in denying him visitation with Abraham.[2] We find no error and affirm.
I. Statement of Facts
In August 2003, the Monterey County Department of Social Services (Department) filed a petition that alleged that Abraham came within the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (a) [serious physical harm], (b) [failure to protect], and (g) [no provision for support]. The petition alleged that Abraham was then two years old. His mother had six children and had not taken care of them for any significant period of time. The maternal grandmother was caring for Abraham and his four-year-old brother Marcus when they were placed in protective custody. The grandmother stated that she was no longer able to care for the boys. The petition also alleged that appellant had returned Abraham to his grandmother after a visit, and Abraham had scratches on his nose and bruises on his face. Abraham's paternal aunt stated that she saw appellant hit him. Shortly thereafter, appellant told the grandmother that Abraham caused him too much trouble and he was not willing to take him on any more visits. It was also alleged that appellant had an extensive criminal history, and his interest in and ability to care for Abraham was unknown.
In her report for the jurisdictional hearing, the social worker stated that appellant was currently in jail and he appeared to have no interest in taking care of Abraham. The social worker recommended that the juvenile court find that visitation with appellant would be detrimental to Abraham.
The jurisdictional hearing was held in September 2003. Appellant was not present at the hearing. The juvenile court adjudged Abraham a dependent of the court and ordered no visitation for appellant.
In her report for the six-month review hearing, the social worker recommended that the juvenile court terminate services to Abraham's mother, set a section 366.26 hearing, and find that visitation was detrimental to Abraham. However, she also recommended visits between appellant and Abraham, if appellant requested visits and the Department found that the visits would be beneficial to Abraham. Appellant was still in jail and Abraham had lived separately from appellant since birth. In March 2004, the juvenile court approved the findings and orders as recommended by the social worker.
In her report for the section 366.26 hearing, the social worker recommended that adoption be approved as the permanent goal and that the hearing be continued. Appellant remained in jail and would soon be transferred to state or federal prison. The social worker recommended that there be no contact between appellant and Abraham.
In July 2004, the juvenile court held the section 366.26 hearing. Appellant was not present. The juvenile court approved the findings and orders that had been recommended by the social worker.
In her report for the second section 366.26 hearing, the social worker recommended that the juvenile court approve adoption as the permanent placement goal and continue the hearing. It was anticipated that the maternal relatives in Colorado would adopt Abraham and Marcus. Appellant was still residing in jail. The social worker recommended that appellant not visit Abraham.
In January 2005, the juvenile court held the second section 366.26 hearing. Appellant was not present at the hearing. The juvenile court approved the social worker's recommended findings and orders.
In her report for the third section 366.26 hearing, the social worker recommended that the juvenile court approve adoption as the permanent plan and terminate the parental rights of appellant and Abraham's mother. Abraham had been placed with the maternal relatives in Colorado since April 2005. The social worker concluded that there was a high probability that Abraham would be adopted by this couple, and even if these relatives did not adopt him, there remained a high probability that he would be adopted. The social worker also noted that appellant had been incarcerated during the dependency proceedings and had not contacted Abraham. She recommended against visits by appellant, because he had never requested visits due to his incarceration.
In November 2005, the juvenile court held the section 366.26 hearing. Appellant, who was present, requested a continuance until he was released from prison in March 2006. Appellant also requested visitation rights. He stated that he wanted Abraham placed with appellant's sister until he was released from prison, and placed with him. The juvenile court approved the social worker's recommendations and terminated appellant's parental rights. The juvenile court did not order visitation.
II. Discussion
Appellant does not challenge Abraham's adoption by his maternal relatives. He does, however, seek visitation rights and the opportunity to send toys, clothing, and photographs to Abraham. Appellant denied that he was an abusive parent and notes that he will be tested for drugs when he is released from prison on May 26, 2006.
â€
