In re Desiree D.
Filed 5/16/07 In re Desiree D. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 DESIREE D. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL D., Defendant and Appellant. | E041337 (Super.Ct.Nos. J198472, J198473) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. David Cohn, Judge. Affirmed.
Dabney B. Finch, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant Michael D. (Father) is appealing from the juvenile courts August 24, 2006, Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1]order terminating his parental rights to Desiree D. and A.D. (Minors), the subjects of this appeal.
Minors were brought to the attention of the San Bernardino Department of Childrenss Services (DCS) in November 2004 when a San Bernardino County sheriffs deputy called the agency to respond to Minors mothers apartment in Victorville.[2]The deputy, having arrived at the apartment to question Mother and her sister about a stabbing, discovered they were not at home. The sisters had left their five children (four of whom belonged to Mother[3]) home alone all during the night and early morning hours, not an uncommon occurrence for Mother. The children ranged in age from one to seven years. Mother had an extensive drug history and at the time of this incident was on probation and enrolled in a Proposition 36 drug class. DCS detained Minors and was unable to locate Father, who also had a history of drug arrests.
On November 30, 2004, DCS filed section 300 petitions alleging under subdivision (b) that both parents had failed to provide for their children due to substance abuse and that Mother had failed to provide medical care for them. Fathers whereabouts were listed as unknown. The court detained Minors.
Mother had met Father four years prior to Minors detention. Mother told the DCS worker she and Father were not married, that they had met while using crystal together, and that Father had been in prison. Mothers history was replete with criminal street gang membership and involvement and long-term drug and alcohol abuse. Mother herself appeared to have been the victim of abusive conduct by Father. She had been in a number of drug programs but had consistently relapsed and failed to report to her probation officer. In December 2004 Mother was in custody; on the date set for the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, she was not present, but court-appointed counsel appeared for her.
Father had an extensive drug history, including sales, possession of drug manufacturing material, and possession of various controlled substances. At the time of the preparation by DCS of the jurisdictional/dispositional report in December 2004, Father was incarcerated. Court‑appointed counsel appeared for Father, who was in prison custody and not present on the initial date set for the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, and the matter was continued until February 2005.
The older half siblings of Minors reported to DCS that all the children were left alone frequently without adult supervision. They reported being hit by Mother, and they witnessed Father hitting Mother. When one of the children tried to call the police, Father pulled the phone plug out of the wall.
Minors had some physical ailments at the time of detention. A.D. had a
bad cold, a fungus growing on one of his arms, and an infected knee. The treating physician opined the cold may have been due to a vitamin deficiency. Desiree had head lice, a bad cough, and marks on her knees. Minors (in fact, all of the children) appeared to have received little or no medical attention.
Father was present in custody and represented by counsel for a pretrial settlement conference held on January 28, 2005. At that conference, the jurisdictional hearing was continued until March 21, 2005. Paternity testing determined Father to be the biological father of Desiree. In an addendum report DCS recommended six months of reunification services for both parents and continued out of home placement for Minors.
Father appeared in custody for the March 21, 2005, hearing. The court found him to be the presumed father of Minors. Father testified, and he wished to have his parents considered for placement of Minors. The court ordered an ICPC evaluation for the paternal grandparents. The court determined a number of the allegations of the dependency petition to be true, declared Minors dependents, and ordered reunification services and visitation for the parents.
Upon his release from prison on April 11, 2005, Father met with the DCS worker assigned to the case. He reviewed the service plan with the worker, signed it, and received a copy of it. He was to complete a parenting program and a substance abuse program and test for substance abuse. He was to remain free from illegal drug use, avoid arrests and convictions, comply with testing, accept responsibility for his children, and maintain a relationship with his children. He was given a number of referrals in order to complete his reunification plan. Father wanted Minors to live with his parents in Arizona, and he would live with them. Father did not successfully comply with the reunification program, and in June relatives contacted DCS to report Father had been involved in a high-speed chase with the police. His whereabouts remained unknown as of August 31, 2005, the date the status report was filed. DCS recommended termination of his reunification program. The court did so on October 25, 2005, at a hearing at which Father was present and represented by counsel.
Father, who was again in custody in state prison, waived his appearance for the August 24, 2006, section 366.26 hearing. DCS was recommending adoption as the permanent plan for Minors, along with their two older half siblings. All four children were to be adopted by the same individual. Minors were two and four and were doing well in the home of their prospective adoptive parent. The adoptive mother wanted to adopt all four children in order to keep the siblings together and because she had developed an emotional attachment to the children over the time they had been living with her, a period of nine months. She believed the children were already an integral part of her family.
The court followed the recommendation of DCS based on the adoption assessment report and the section 366.26 report prepared for the hearing. The parental rights of all parents were terminated, and Minors were freed for adoption.
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, which he has done. We have completed our independent review of the record and have read and considered the supplemental brief filed by Father.
In his personal supplemental letter brief filed with this court on February 15, 2007, from California Correctional Institution at Tehacapi, Father seeks to introduce postjudgment evidence (his declaration claims full recovery from drug addiction and recent ordination as a minister in the Universal Life Church) for the purposes of reversing the section 336.26 order terminating his parental rights. However, Auto Equity Sales, Inc.v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 binds us to follow the rule of In re Zeth S. (2003)31 Cal.4th 396 and In re Josiah Z. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 664.
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:
McKINSTER
Acting P.J.
MILLER
J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
[2] The mother (Mother) is not a party to this appeal. Her parental rights were also terminated at the August 24 hearing. We cite intermittently to facts relating to Mother but only when necessary to provide a more complete context for the factual and procedural history of the case.
[3] Father was not married to Mother, and of her four children he is the biological parent of only Desiree and A.D.. A.D. was born in 2002 and Desiree in 2003.
