In re C.W.
Filed 5/2/06 In re C.W. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 C.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GARY W. et al., Defendants and Appellants. | E039311 (Super.Ct.No. J191334) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. James C. McGuire, Judge. Affirmed.
Michael D. Randall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Gary W.
Karen J. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Stephanie H.
Ronald D. Reitz, County Counsel, and Danielle E. Wuchenich, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.
Gary W. (father) and Stephanie H. (mother) have both appealed a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights to their son, C.W. (Welf. & Inst. Code,[1] § 366.26.) Father, joined by mother,[2] contends reversal is required due to errors occurring earlier in the proceedings. Although these issues should properly have been raised by writ petition after the court terminated reunification services and scheduled a permanency hearing, we address them here because, as the Department of Children's Services (DCS) concedes, father was not afforded proper notice of his right to file a writ petition. (In re Athena P. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 617, 625.) Nonetheless, we conclude that neither of father's claims has merit and therefore affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY[3]
C.W. was born three months prematurely in September 2003, and in October, juvenile dependency petitions were filed as to both him and his older half-brother, Jesse H.[4] C.W.'s petition alleged that mother had a substance abuse problem which impaired her ability to care for her son, and that three of mother's children had been removed from her care and adopted by nonrelatives. It further alleged that father had a substance abuse problem and a criminal history, both of which hindered his ability to care for C.W.
At the detention hearing, C.W., along with Jesse, was ordered detained with mother and father. In December, however, both boys were removed from mother's custody because she had a positive drug test and they were placed with their maternal grandmother. Also in December, father was declared C.W.'s presumed father, and in February, the boys were declared dependents of the court. By July, the grandmother indicated she was no longer willing to care for the boys and a supplemental section 387 petition was filed. The boys, who are both asthmatic and suffer from other respiratory ailments, were then moved to a confidential foster home for medically fragile children in Riverside County. They remained together in that placement until July 2005, when Jesse was reunified with his biological father. C.W. is still there and, as indicated later in this opinion, his foster parents are committed to adopting him.
At the time of the August 2004 hearing, father was incarcerated for a parole violation and was scheduled to be released from prison in January. The court found that he had not participated regularly in his court-ordered treatment plan and ordered weekly, supervised visitation with C.W. upon his release. At the request of counsel for Jesse's father, the court directed DCS to attempt to find an appropriate placement for the boys closer to San Bernardino County.
In September 2004, mother, who one month earlier had been unable to maintain sobriety for more than a few days, enrolled in a residential drug treatment program, which she successfully completed in December. During that three-month period, she maintained regular and consistent visitation with the boys. For a period of time after she left the program, however, visitation was virtually nonexistent. As a result, C.W. had not bonded with her, but rather, had formed a very strong bond with his foster mother.
In the meantime, father, who had not taken advantage of any programs while incarcerated, was released from prison in November 2004. In January 2005, he met with the social worker to review his case plan and arrangements were made for him to receive substance abuse counseling and to attend parenting classes. Not only did he fail to participate in the programs, but he also failed to cooperate with random drug testing to which he had agreed.
On January 13, 2005, father saw C.W. for the first time in more than eight months. Not surprisingly, C.W. refused to go to him, screamed, and ran for his foster parents. From that day forward, visitation was problematic; not only did C.W. appear to be afraid of father, but also, father at times failed to show up as planned. According to the social worker, parental visitation was having a negative effect on C.W.
By February 2005, the social worker was recommending that both boys remain in their placement and that a section 366.26 hearing be scheduled. According to the social worker, mother was â€
