In re Alexis G.

Filed 6/26/05 In re Alexis G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jamileh Schwartzbart, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)

Lee Gulliver, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, and Howard K. Watkins, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Alexis G. and Raphael L., born in 1997 and in 1994 respectively, were made dependent children of the juvenile court after it was found that their mother, Dora L., had inflicted corporal punishment on Raphael. Luis G., the appellant, is the father of Alexis G. Although he was a nonoffending parent, he and mother were ordered to participate in reunification services. At a review hearing, services were continued for mother and terminated for appellant. In this appeal, appellant challenges the visitation order, claiming it improperly delegates discretion for visitation to the minors. He does not challenge the termination of reunification services. We affirm.

Factual Background

Mother and appellant were not living together at the time of the filing of the petition, which alleged mother inflicted corporal punishment on Raphael and that Raphael and his sister Alexis were in danger of suffering serious physical harm.^[1] The petition was found true, and mother and appellant were given reunification services. From the outset, mother claimed that appellant was not the father of Alexis and requested a paternity test. Counsel for appellant pointed out that appellant had signed a declaration of paternity after Alexis was born and therefore paternity is presumed. The court did not order a paternity test.

The report prepared for the December 2004 disposition hearing stated that father had visited both children every other weekend prior to intervention of the juvenile court. After intervention, father had weekly visits with Raphael and Alexis at the department of children and family services offices (the department). The visits went well and there were no problems.

At the December 6, 2004 disposition hearing, the court ordered both parents to participate in reunification services. The court ordered visitation with discretion for unsupervised visits for both parents.

Following an evaluation of her home, the children were placed with their maternal grandmother.

Appellant had supervised visits with the children for one hour each week. The visits went well and the children seemed to be happy and comfortable with the visits. However, on March 9, 2005, the children informed the social worker that they did not want to have visits with appellant anymore. â€