In re Anthony C.
Filed 4/3/06 In re Anthony C. CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 ONE
| In re ANTHONY C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B184963 |
| LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANNAMARIE C. And LEO C., Defendants and Appellants. | (L.A.S.C. No. CK 50494) |
APPEALS from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. S. Patricia Spear, Judge. Affirmed.
________
Karen B. Stalter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Annamarie C.
Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Leo C.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel and Frank J. DaVanzo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________
The dependency court dismissed its dependency jurisdiction due to its establishment of a legal guardianship for Anthony C. (born in 1996) and Carlitos C. (born in 1997) (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.3, 366.4),[1] and entered a parental visitation order. (§ 366.26, subdivision (c)(4)(C).)[2] The children's parents, appellants Annamarie C. and Leo C.,[3] contend that dependency jurisdiction should not have been terminated and the visitation order improperly delegated to the legal guardians the court's authority to withhold, terminate, or liberalize visitation. We reject both contentions and affirm the order.
BACKGROUND
In October 2002, Annamarie took an overdose of PCP and opiates that would have been fatal but for six-year-old Anthony's 911 call which saved her life.[4] The Department filed a petition which, as amended, alleged (1) inappropriate physical discipline of Anthony by the father, failure to protect by the mother, and a risk of harm to Carlitos, and (2) substance abuse by both parents. The parents entered a no-contest plea and the dependency court sustained the amended petition. (§ 300, subds. (a), (b).)
After the parents tried but failed to reunify with the children, the dependency court held a permanency planning hearing (§ 366.26) at which it appointed the foster parents as legal guardians. The dependency court denied parental visitation with Anthony (based on factual findings of detriment that are not disputed on appeal) but granted the parents weekly telephone calls with Carlitos. At the legal guardians' request, the court reduced the parents' in-person visits with Carlitos from weekly to twice a month and increased the supervision from monitored visitation to therapeutic visitation in the presence of the therapist. The court made these changes based upon the legal guardians' concerns about the parents' statements to Carlitos during the visits that were designed to turn him against them and the parents' attempts to bribe Carlitos with gifts.
At the August 3, 2005, hearing on the issues of parental visitation and termination of dependency jurisdiction, the Department reported that the children were still displaying symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder for which they were receiving weekly therapy.[5] Carlitos was taking Concerta for his hyperactive, impulsive and inattentive behaviors both at school and home. Carlitos was speaking on the phone with his mother on a weekly basis but not with his father, who only called sporadically. He told the social worker that â€
