In re Crystal D.

Filed 5/30/06  In re Crystal D. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 San Bernardino County.  Deborah Daniel, Temporary Judge.  (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)  Affirmed.

            Michael D. Randall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Ronald D. Reitz, County Counsel, and Dawn M. Messer, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

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

1.  Introduction

            Objector and appellant Ronald D. (father) is the natural father of Crystal D., Katrina D., and Samantha D. (two other children, Veronica D. and Timothy P., are not the subject of this appeal).  When the juvenile court terminated his parental rights to the children, the court denied his request for a final, supervised visit with them.  The sole ground of appeal is the contention that the court abused its discretion in denying this final visit.  We affirm. 

2.  Factual and Procedural Background

            Father earlier filed a writ petition seeking review of the juvenile court's order setting a selection and implementation hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.  In the opinion we issued in that case, we noted that the family had an extensive history of intervention by the San Bernardino County Department of Children's Services (DCS).  There were at least three sustained petitions alleging general neglect.  Both parents had a long history of substance abuse, and father had a criminal record dating back to 1975. 

            In 2004, new allegations surfaced that father had sexually abused Samantha.  The child revealed that father had been molesting her for two years.  Father was charged with continuous sexual abuse of a child and with committing lewd and lascivious acts on a child under age 14.  He remained incarcerated throughout the proceedings up to the time that the court ordered the selection and implementation hearing. 

            Samantha described ongoing abuse that had taken place since she was eight or nine years old.  Father would force her to orally copulate him until ejaculation, he penetrated her anus with his penis, he put his finger in her vagina and he fondled her breasts.  The abuse normally took place in the garage, where he had set up a television and video equipment, and had pornographic materials.  Samantha did not want to go into the garage and cried when father called her into the garage.  Her mother would make her go into the garage with father.  After the family lost its home, the abuse continued.

            Another child, Veronica, had been hospitalized with severe behavior problems, and it was reported that father would sometimes take her into the bathroom where they would remain for long periods of time.  The children also reported other violent behavior:  father choked them with his hands and lifted them off the floor by their necks.  He hit them with a belt or his hand, leaving marks.  He had hit Timothy's head against the wall, and told the mother to lie to doctors, saying that the child had fallen.  Samantha also reported that father had asked her to say that she lied about the abuse allegations.

            In the earlier writ proceedings, father had argued that he had been provided inadequate reunification services.  Although he was incarcerated, he contended that DCS had not been sufficiently diligent in pursuing arrangements to provide him with services while he was in jail.  We denied his writ petition, finding that the services provided were adequate under the circumstances.  The court properly terminated reunification services and set a selection and implementation hearing. 

            Now, that hearing has been held and the court has terminated father's parental rights.  Father testified at the hearing that he agreed with the recommendation for adoption, and understood that his parental rights would be terminated.  Father had not seen Crystal or Katrina in over two years, and had not seen Samantha for about one and one-half years.  Father's visitation with the children had been terminated because they could not be adequately supervised by DCS.  There were fears that father would pressure the children to recant their allegations against him, and father's criminal case was still pending.  Nevertheless, father asked for one last visit with the children, or that he be provided photographs of them. 

            At the hearing, counsel for DCS opposed a final visit.  The problem with monitoring the visit would still remain:  â€