In re C.A.

Filed 2/14/07  In re C.A. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

            APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County.  Robert M. Padia and William A. Anderson, Jr., Temporary Judges.  (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)  Affirmed.

            Nicole Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, and L. Alexandra Fong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

            Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minors.

            Defendant and appellant Nelson A. (father) appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating the visitation order with his daughters, C.A. and C.S., and son, J.A.  Father claims that the court abused its discretion in terminating visitation without finding changed circumstances or that visitation was detrimental to his children.  We disagree and affirm.^[1]

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

            On April 1, 2005, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the department) filed Welfare and Institutions Code^[2] section 300 petitions on behalf of C.A. and C.S., as well as father's five stepchildren (collectively, the children).^[3]  C.A. was four years old and C.S. was three years old at the time.  The petitions alleged that C.A. and C.S. came within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect), subdivision (g) (no provision for support), and subdivision (j) (abuse of sibling).  Specifically, the petitions alleged that there was a substantial risk the children would suffer serious physical harm because, while in the care of father and mother,^[4] father sexually abused two of his stepdaughters, S.A and N.A.  The petitions also alleged that father was currently incarcerated.  In the detention report, the social worker recommended that all the children be detained, given mother's failure to protect them, and her refusal to believe that father sexually abused her daughters.

            A detention hearing was held on April 4, 2005.  The court placed the children in the temporary custody of the department and detained them in foster care.  Furthermore, the court ordered frequent and liberal visitation, as directed by the department.  As for father, the court ordered â€