In re Christopher E
Filed 3/22/06 In re Christopher E. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 CHRISTOPHER E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER E., Defendant and Appellant. | E039283 (Super.Ct.No. J197429) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Winifred Brewer, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Diana W. Prince, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Christopher E.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Minor.
Christopher E. (Father) appeals from an order terminating his parental rights pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1]
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 4, 2004, Christopher E. came to the attention of the Department of Children's Services (the Department) when it was reported that the mother had given birth to the child and both tested positive for methamphetamine. On September 22, the police were called to the child's home because the parents were fighting. A social worker went to the home and reported that it was filthy, the parents had thrown items during a fight, and the mother and child were not home. Father complained of the mother's severe mood swings and aggressive behavior towards him. Father said that the child was with one of Mother's relatives. The social worker explained that the child could not return to the home.
A dependency petition was filed on September 24, 2004, alleging both parents' failure to protect and support under section 300, subdivision (b). Specifically, it was alleged that the parents had a history of domestic violence and substance abuse, that the home was below community standards, and that Mother suffers from a mental illness. The child was ordered detained on September 27. Father was present at the hearing. The court further ordered visitation, drug testing and reunification services pending the development of a family service plan.
In the October 19, 2004, jurisdiction/disposition report, the Department recommended reunification services. The social worker noted that Father had made some improvements in the home. The mother had been released from jail. Her relatives indicated that she has always had anger management problems, and Mother believes she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Both parents admitted that they continued to use methamphetamine. They failed to complete drug tests and they had missed some visits with the child. A contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing was set for November 9.
On November 9, 2004, at the contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing, Father was present. He waived his right to a contested hearing and submitted on the Department's report. The court sustained the allegations in the petition, declared the child to be a dependent of the court, and ordered reunification services and visitation.
In the report that was prepared for the May 6, 2005, six-month review, the Department recommended terminating both parents' reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing. Father had been incarcerated from January 27 through April 14, 2005, for burglary and receiving stolen property. Neither parent had participated in their reunification plans, and Father had not visited the child since February 15. Prior to that date, Father's visitation was described as being sporadic. The Department opined, â€
