In re B.N
Filed 2/17/06 In re B.N. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| In re B.N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWARD N., Defendant and Appellant. | E039228 (Super.Ct.No. J195469) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Cynthia Ann Ludvigsen, Judge. Affirmed.
Nicole Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Minor.
Edward N. (father), the father of B.N. (child) who is almost two years old, appeals from an order of the dependency court terminating his parental rights. The child's mother is not a party to this appeal.
The child was born exposed to opiates. Mother had a history of substance abuse. Mother had an extensive history of involvement with the Department of Children's Services (DCS) regarding her numerous other children. Mother had failed to reunify with the children and some were in the process of being adopted. Father had been recently released from prison.
A petition was filed on behalf of the child pursuant to Welfare and Institutions code, section 300.[1] The petition was subsequently amended on June 29, 2004. As to father, it alleged that he had a history of drug possession and two felony convictions that impair his ability to parent and to protect his unborn child. (§ 300, subd. (b).) It further alleged that father's ability to provide for the child was unknown. (§ 300, subd. (g).)
At the jurisdictional hearing held on December 12, 2004, the court sustained the petition and found the child came within section 300, subdivision (b). No findings were made under section 300, subdivision (g). The matter was continued for a dispositional hearing.
The dispositional hearing was held on March 2, 2005. Mother was in prison. Father was out of prison. He had been ordered back for the hearing if he was out of custody. He was not present. No services were offered for mother. Father was granted reunification services. The court declared the child to be a dependent of the court and placed the child in nonrelative foster care. The foster family wants to adopt the child. The case was set for a review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).)
On March 4, 2005, father was arrested on a parole violation and returned to prison. DCS recommended termination of father's reunification services. The six-month review hearing was held on May 19, 2005. The court terminated father's reunification services and set the case for a selection and implementation hearing. (§ 366.26.)
On November 7, 2005, the court found the child adoptable[2] and terminated the parental rights of father and the child's mother.
Father has appealed, and at his request we have appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under authority of In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of facts and asking this court to undertake an independent review of the entire record. We provided father with an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
We have now completed our independent review and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ McKinster
Acting P.J.
We concur:
/s/ Gaut
J.
/s/ King
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego rebate fraud lawyer (http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/) And San Diego Lawyers Directory ( http://www.fearnotlaw.com/ )
[1] All further statutory references are to this code.
