In re Carla G.
Filed 3/6/07 In re Carla G. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re CARLA G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN G., Defendant and Appellant. | E041077 (Super.Ct.Nos. J197169, J197170, J197171) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Robert G. Fowler, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.) Affirmed.
Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant Juan G.(Father) is appealing from the termination of his parental rights pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1]The three minors who are the subjects of this appeal, Carla G., A.G., and J. G., were born to Father and their mother (Mother) between January 1999 and July 2002. Father and Mother, although not married, had been together since 1998, residing with their three children in the home of Mothers parents. In April 2004, at the age of 27, Mother died from a heart attack attributed to her morbid obesity. After Mothers death, Father took the children and moved out of the maternal grandparents home.
The children came to the attention of the San Bernardino Department of Childrens Services (the Department) in September 2004, when the maternal grandmother took the children to the Departments branch office in Rancho Cucamonga to report abuse of A.G. by Father. A.G. complained that Father had hit her with a belt, that this was not the first such occurrence of corporal punishment, and that when Father drank alcohol he usually hit her and her siblings. The maternal grandparents stated they had pictures of previous abuse incidents. The grandparents alleged Father had threatened to take the children out of the state or country if they reported the abuse to the authorities.
Father explained the red marks on A.G.s leg were caused by her falling against a table and not by his hitting her with a belt. Father told the investigating social worker that A.G. was a big liar; he also denied alcohol abuse and revealed an arrest for drunk driving and another arrest for driving with a suspended license. As a result of A.G.s assertions, Father was arrested.
The Department filed a section 300 petition alleging minors came within subdivisions (a), (b), (g), and (j). The minors were detained and placed in the home of the maternal grandparents, where they remained until the termination of Fathers parental rights on July 27, 2006.
The October 5, 2004, jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, at which father was present represented by counsel, concluded with the court establishing a dependency and ordering reunification services for Father, along with supervised weekly visitation. The visitations were difficult for the children, who would cry and cling to their grandparents, whom they referred to as Mom and Dad. The grandparents had been the primary caregivers for the children, and the children were doing well with their grandparents. A.G. did not want to return to her father, and the children did not ask about his absence.
Father continued to deny alcohol abuse or any abusive conduct toward the minors. He blamed much of the dysfunction on the grandparents. He believed they held him morally responsible for his wifes death.
Reunification services were continued for Father at the six-month review hearing held in April of 2005. The Department felt Father had made minimal progress with his case plan. He appeared to grossly misunderstand his childrens emotional development and normal childhood behaviors. Father denied that his children had any issues with the death of their mother. He also continued to deny his alcohol use despite his drunk driving arrest and statements by others that he drank regularly. The Department believed Father was resistant to treatment and failed to accept responsibility for his actions.
The children viewed their placement with the grandparents as home, having always resided with them. The grandparents had provided for the children since birth and had met all of their basic needs. A.G. was in kindergarten and doing well; although a quiet child, she was meeting all developmental milestones. Emotionally she was attempting to deal with her mothers death, which occurred with the child present. A.G. would make statements to the effect that she wanted to get really fat so she could die and see her mother. The Department believed counseling would be beneficial for her. J.G., shy and only willing to talk to the social worker in the presence of his grandparents, also met all of his developmental milestones and exhibited no behavioral problems. Carla, the youngest, talked a great deal and, like her siblings, was significantly attached to her grandparents.
A status report prepared by the Department in October 2005 recommended the court set a section 366.26 hearing and that reunification services for Father be terminated. While Father had completed some services, he had not met the objectives outlined in the service plan. He had not completed counseling and he had not admitted alcohol abuse or physical abuse of his children. He had not demonstrated any compassion or understanding about how his children were reacting to the death of their mother. The Department opined Fathers interaction with his children ranged from inappropriate to a total lack of bonding. Father frequently left the visits with his children early; there appeared to be no parent-child relationship, and the children had no desire to return to him.
The same report indicated the children continued to make progress, and the bonding between them and their grandparents was immediately noticeable. The children looked to the grandparents for their needs and were affectionate with them. The grandparents expressed their continuing commitment to the children.
The court terminated Fathers reunification services in December 2005. At the hearing, Father testified that he wanted the children to live with him, that he did not have an alcohol problem, that he had tested negative for drugs, and that he regularly visited the minors. The court set a section 366.26 hearing for April 3, 2006.
The Department prepared an adoption assessment report in May 2006. The report found the children to be happy and well living in the only home they had really ever known. The children were very closely knit to each other, just as they were to their grandparents. The grandparents were committed to providing the best family and home environment for the minors. They loved the children and were happy to live with them. The Department recommended adoption.
At the contested section 366.26 hearing held on July 27, 2006, Father, represented by counsel, testified he enjoyed visiting with his children and believed they enjoyed his visits. He was at the time living and working in Oregon in construction. He did not agree with the Department that the children should be adopted, but rather that the children live with the grandparents, and he would take them for vacation. The social worker called by Father testified that he kept arrangements for visits most of the time and that for the last several months the children seemed to get along with him better, but at the end of the visits they would walk out without acknowledging him. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found the children adoptable and that no exceptions existed that precluded the termination of Fathers parental rights. It ordered his parental rights terminated.
Father appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Appellate counsel submitted a brief under the 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 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We have invited Father to file a supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
Even though we are not required to conduct an independent review of the record under In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th 952, we have done so. We have completed that review and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RICHLI
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P.J.
KING
J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise designated.
