Filed 11/23/05 In re Albert V. CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re ALBERT V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	B181056 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK48588)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALBERTO V., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Phillip L. Soto, Judge. Affirmed.

Anna L. Ollinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Judith A. Luby, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

Appellant Alberto V.[1] (father) appeals from a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to his son, eight-year-old Albert V. (Albert), pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[2] Father contends that the juvenile court erred when it found that father did not demonstrate that the parental benefit exception (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)) to terminating parental rights did not apply.

We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Removal and Detention

Albert and his younger brother, Jacob K. (Jacob) (collectively, the minors) were removed from their mother's care on March 27, 2002, by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). In a section 300 petition filed on April 2, 2002, DCFS alleged: The minors' mother, Shanna K. (mother), physically abused Albert, which subjected him to unreasonable pain and suffering and exposed Jacob to a risk of similar abuse. The physical and emotional health and safety of the minors also were endangered due to the pattern of violence between mother and father. Additionally, due to a history of substance abuse, mother was incapable of providing the minors with regular care.

When notified of Albert's removal, father told the social worker that the domestic violence incident occurred prior to Albert's birth and that he had completed a domestic violence program. He advised the social worker that he wanted custody of his son, Albert. If Albert could not be placed with him, he preferred placement with his mother, Esther E. (Esther).

At the detention hearing, Albert advised the juvenile court that he wanted to live with father, but did not want to be separated from Jacob, who is not father's child. Ultimately, Albert was detained and both he and Jacob were placed in the care of Peter R. (Peter) and Antonio G. (Tony) (collectively, the foster parents). DCFS was ordered to evaluate the home of Gail K. (Gail), the minors' maternal grandmother and release them to her, if appropriate. Unmonitored day visits were ordered for father with discretion to the social worker to allow overnight visits. Reunification services were ordered as well.

The matter was continued to May 2002, for a pretrial resolution conference.

Pretrial Resolution Conference

In a report prepared for the May 2002 hearing, the social worker described five-year-old Albert as very bonded to Jacob. Both Albert and Jacob were doing well with their foster parents. The foster parents told the social worker that they had a good relationship with the minors' family and allowed all family members to visit the children in their home. In their opinion, both the maternal and paternal families truly cared for the minors.

The social worker also reported that father had â€