NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
In re A.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. E.B., Defendant and Appellant. | C050824 (Super. Ct. No. JD220978) |
E.B., the father of the minor, appeals from orders of the juvenile court denying his petition for modification and adopting a permanent plan with the goal of adoption for the minor. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 388, 395.)[1] We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On August 19, 2004, the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHS) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of minor A.G. (born in August 2001). The petition alleged that the minor's mother, K.G., had a history of substance abuse from which she had failed and refused to rehabilitate and which rendered her incapable of providing adequate care for the minor. The petition also alleged that appellant and K.G. had a history of domestic violence, with incidents taking place in the minor's presence.
The detention report explained that K.G. had an extensive history of substance abuse, that the minor was born with a positive toxicology for drugs, and that K.G. had recently been hospitalized for an overdose involving three separate drugs. K.G. had refused family services and refused to enter a treatment program or submit to drug tests. K.G. had not been providing the basic needs for the minor. Instead, the minor was being cared for by the maternal great grandmother.
Appellant and K.G. also have another daughter, S.G., born in November 1998. S.G.'s legal guardian is the maternal grandmother, but the child lives with and is raised by the maternal great grandmother. S.G. is not a dependent child of the court.
Neither appellant nor K.G. attended the October 7, 2004, combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing. The juvenile court sustained the allegations of the petition, declared A.G. a dependent child of the court, and ordered her to remain in out-of-home placement. The court also ordered reunification services, including visitation, for both parents and ordered both parents to abstain from the use of drugs and alcohol. Appellant's reunification plan included weekly domestic violence and parenting programs, weekly substance abuse counseling, and attendance three times each week in outpatient substance abuse services, substance abuse testing, and a 12-step substance abuse program.
The social worker's March 24, 2005, status report stated that K.G. had been visiting the minor but had otherwise failed to comply with the reunification plan. Appellant had made his whereabouts unknown to the social worker for the previous six months, had not visited the minor, and had not participated in any of the reunification services. He had been booked into the Sacramento County jail on robbery and criminal threats charges on November 17, 2004, and had an expected release date of June 16, 2005. Appellant was in protective custody during his incarceration and reunification services were not available to him. The social worker recommended reunification services for both parents be terminated.
The juvenile court terminated reunification services for both parents and set a permanency planning hearing. The July 21, 2005, selection and implementation report stated that K.G. had not been visiting the minor but appellant had been seeing the minor weekly since his release from incarceration. The minor was comfortable in her placement with her maternal great grandmother, as she had lived there all her life. The maternal great grandparents had expressed interest in adopting the minor and, according to an earlier report, it appeared removal from the home would be detrimental to the minor. There were, however, significant problems with the maternal great grandmother's care giving abilities and the minor had continued to display behavior problems. Nevertheless, the social worker recommended the court find A.G. adoptable, order a permanent plan of adoption, continue placement with the maternal great grandparents, and terminate parental rights.
On August 12, 2005, appellant filed a section 388 petition for modification requesting the minor be returned to him or, in the alternative, that his reunification services be reinstated. The petition alleged appellant had been released from incarceration on June 16, 2005, that he was attending individual counseling and addressing issues of domestic violence and anger management. A bonding assessment, attached to the petition, indicated that there was a strong bond between appellant and the minor and that severing contact between them would be detrimental to the minor. Appellant filed a supplemental attachment to the petition consisting of a letter from his therapist. The letter stated that appellant had attended six sessions with the therapist, was cooperative and committed to doing what was needed to keep his child safe and happy.
The social worker's August 17, 2005, addendum report stated the minor's behavioral problems were improving. The social worker opined that the minor was â€
