In re A.R.

Filed 1/12/07  In re A.R. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

----

     Patrick G. (appellant), the father of A. R. (the minor), appeals from an order of the juvenile court denying appellant's motion, based on the alleged failure of Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to serve appellant with notice of the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, to set aside the court's jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders.  (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395; further undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.)  Appellant contends that, as his due process right to notice of the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing was violated by improper notice, the juvenile court committed prejudicial error in denying his motion.  Finding no prejudicial error, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

     On January 25, 2005, DHHS filed an original juvenile dependency petition pursuant to section 300 on behalf of the two-year-old minor.  That petition, which misspelled appellant's last name, named him as the alleged father of the minor, with no address listed for appellant.  The petition alleged the minor's mother, not a party to this appeal, failed to protect the minor. 

     The detention hearing report named appellant as the minor's father, with no known address, and misspelled appellant's last name.  Appellant was absent from the detention hearing.  The juvenile court found appellant to be an alleged father of the minor. 

     The cover sheet for the jurisdiction hearing report listed appellant, with his last name spelled correctly, and also included a mailing address for appellant.  The cover sheet indicated DHHS had notified appellant of the jurisdiction hearing by telephone.  According to the jurisdiction hearing report, during their February 1, 2005, telephone interview, appellant terminated the conversation with the social worker after he received calls from others attempting to speak to him.  Appellant told the social worker he wanted to reunify with the minor. 

     Appellant was absent from the February 17, 2005, combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing.  The juvenile court found appellant to be the father of the minor.^[1]  The juvenile court also sustained the petition, adjudged the minor a dependent child, and ordered DHHS to provide reunification services to appellant. 

     In its April 2005 report, DHHS stated it had sent a letter to appellant at his mailing address, requesting him to contact the social worker.  The social worker also spoke to the paternal grandmother, seeking to learn appellant's whereabouts.  The social worker was unsuccessful in establishing any contact with appellant.  DHHS prepared a reunification plan for appellant.  According to the social worker, appellant failed to make himself available to DHHS. 

     On July 14, 2005, DHHS sent appellant notice of the

six-month review hearing at his mailing address.  One week later, in its report, DHHS listed appellant's legal address as the county jail.  The social worker recommended termination of reunification services for appellant.  Appellant was not present for the commencement of the six-month review hearing. 

     In an August 23, 2005, report, DHHS stated that appellant had contacted the social worker twice in August.  Appellant told the social worker that he was incarcerated but was attempting to comply with his case plan.  Appellant also told the social worker he wanted to be present at future proceedings and did not have legal representation. 

     On August 25, 2005, the juvenile court appointed counsel to represent appellant.  Thereafter, at the September 16, 2005, continued six-month review hearing, which appellant attended, the juvenile court found that DHHS had attempted to provide reasonable reunification services to appellant.  The court then terminated those services.  Appellant told the court his mailing address was the county jail. 

     In January and February 2006, appellant moved to vacate the jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders on the ground that he was not notified properly of the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing. 

     At the March 6, 2006, hearing that is the subject of this appeal, the juvenile court denied appellant's motion.  According to the court, appellant was â€